Remember that one time I bumped into the lesbian couple while holding my March4Marriage sign?

As you know I am now an Official Bonafide Jet-setter and as such I was in DC (people who move and shake drop the Washington part and now that I am so worldly, well, you know) last weekend for a panel discussion hosted by Alliance Defending Freedom called “What about the children?” They invited me to speak alongside marriage law expert Caleb Dalton and Dr. Paul Sullins who happens to be The Go-To Man on the impact of same-sex parenting. He is responsible for studies that capture data representative of more than all of the oppositions studies represent combined. So basically, with a legal expert and social scientist at my side I just got to show up and blather. Here’s a few blather-inspired video clips:

The day after the panel was the national March for Marriage. In Seattle, we don’t have marches – we have protests- so I was intent to get my full-blown tourist action on and do me some Marching.

Armed with my tourist badge, you know the concierge-marked-up-map, I set out for my first Official March.

And March I did.

About an hour into what turned out to be the most multiracial event I had ever seen, I began to hear the monkey on my back whispering sweet nothings about hot coffee. So I grabbed my March Standard “A CHILD needs a MOTHER and a FATHER” sign and bee-lined to nearest Starbucks.

While I waited patiently, keeping a good leash on my primate, I was confronted by a woman gunning for a throw down.

Her: “Are you fighting against equality?!?” she said edgily, invading my personal bubble.

Me: “No, I’m fighting for the rights of children to be in relationship with both their mother and father.”

Her: “But you’re against gay marriage, right?”

Me: “Yes, because it promotes fatherless and motherless households.”

Her: “Lots of kids don’t have that. I grew up without a dad and I did fine.”

Me: (Full stop. Mentally on my knees – Oh Lord, help me be sensitive to this woman. What do you want me to say to that?)

“How did that go for you?” I asked, with as much softness as I could muster and still be heard. “Most kids long for their missing father.”

Here she paused, but only for a moment. “I just decided that I was probably better off because he wouldn’t have been a good father.” (Interpretation: she spent a lot of time thinking/longing/wondering about that before she came to the self-protecting conclusion that did not involve her father’s rejection which would have been entirely too painful to bear because that relationship actually mattered a great deal to her).

In short? Same as it ever is.

Switching tactics, she turns to the woman next to her. “This is my fiancée, Adeline.” We greet and shake and then she dives back in, “but what about couples who can’t get pregnant on their own? How are they supposed to have children?”

Me: “Well, children have a natural, self-evident right to be in relationship with both parents. It’s a right recognized by the United Nations. Adults should not willfully break those bonds. So however people choose to become parents, they must do so in a way that doesn’t violate a child’s rights.”

Her: “Oh. So you must be against divorce” she says with a smile, “because that really separates kids from their parents.”

Me: “Actually, I am. Most divorces take place in low-conflict marriages, where the adults “fall out of love” or just get bored with the relationship. When they move on, the adults are often fine. But we know that kids suffer long-term effects, especially in relationships and in work, after divorce. While there are circumstances that merit divorce, those represent a small percentage of cases. I wish the marriage movement would focus more on divorce reform.”

Now the two of them are looking more baffled than hostile. “So what can be done about all that?”

I talked with her about the two organizations I work with, CanaVox and International Children’s Rights Institute, and how both are taking a holistic and long-term approach. One on the grassroots level and one at the policy level. “I want reform in the fertility industry so kids cannot be created with the express intent to deny them a relationship with one or both natural parents, first of all. And I want ethical adoption, so that every placement will be child-centered and not primarily about adults getting kids. And I want marriage laws which protect child rights and well-being.”

They got their coffee and we gave each other a final hand-shake and goodbye. As we were leaving, she asked, “So what are you trying to accomplish? I mean, what do you ultimately want to have happen?”

Me: “Basically, I want us to stop expecting children to act like adults and sacrifice their rights and needs. And I want us to start expecting adults, heterosexual and homosexual, to sacrifice so children don’t have to.”

It was I N T E N S E. But what started as a confrontation ended up being an actual discussion.

Hey “my side” of this issue, can we do more of that? Let’s go with yes.

Absolutely love these videos. Spot on. I love the part about not expecting children to be adults. Adults need to be adults. You, my friend, do not blather. And you’re gorgeous. So glad you got to go and be a part of it.

Ms. Faust, bravo for a having a civil discussion. No doubt a rarity on this issue. One thing I have never been clear on is what, exactly, opponents of marriage equality think will happen to children if it become the law. In addition, I wonder how that state of the world is, in fact, “worse” for children than the current one.

My point this: it is fine to argue that children need a mother and a father (among other things they have a right to, in your view) however child-rearing need not be part and parcel of marriage. Indeed, there are gay men and women with no children who would like the chance to marry. Are you opposed to their getting married? What about the status gay of people who become parents through no action of their own (e.g. death of a loved one)? Are you suggesting that men and women who realize their sexuality later in life, after they have become parents, lose custody? Please describe for me the conditions under which the state ought to have the right to restrict someone’s ability to be a parent based upon their sexual preference.

Second, government has no interest in recognizing people feelings. If they did, then gay marriage makes sense because I know several gay couples who love each other and are committed to each other. But the only reason government is in the marriage business at all is that heterosexual sex makes babies, and those vulnerable people need provision and protection. What kids need most is the love of their father, the love of their mother, and stability: the three things which heterosexual marriage brings together. Therefore, encouraging heterosexual couples to commit to one another (through tax breaks, etc) is good policy. When kids are separated from one or both parents, they are at much higher risk for all manner of social ills. How many foster kids come from married mother-father homes? Nearly zero. What would happen if we really encouraged, through all means possible, fathers to commit to the mother of their children? We would take a huge bite out of every social ill we are facing as a nation. That’s really what marriage policy is supposed to do.

If you make a baby with someone, it doesn’t matter what you orientation is: society needs to encourage both parents to stick it out. I know several amazing gay fathers who are in marriage with their kids mothers so that their kids don’t have to suffer brokenness. That’s the kind of parental sacrifice that we should expect of every adult, gay or straight. Because when families break down, we get the epidemic of incarceration, poverty, low school performance, higher rates of social/emotional struggles, etc.

Third, while there are situations where two men or two women are raising kids because they are striving to clean up where a heterosexual relationship fell through (just like the grandparents, or aunts/uncles, or single parents, raising kids for the same reason) institutionalizing gay marriage will incentivize the creation of motherless/fatherless household to suit adult desires.

Hope this makes sense. I’ve got a few distractions running around my ankles so if I missed something, let me know. 😉

“First, that you rightly recognize that people can “recognize their sexuality later in life” tells us that sexual “orientation” is not like race, which is immutable.”

Your comparison lacks merit. It’s not at all unheard of for people to learn of their ethnicity later in life. Also, with all of the bigotry directed at homosexuals, it’s not at all uncommon for them to attempt to deny what they know inside to be true.

Race is completely and totally a social construct. It has absolutely no significance whatsoever other than what we as individuals and as a society assign to it, and it is defined in terms strictly dependent upon the whims of society. Gender, on the other hand, has objective significance, particularly with regard to the activity most closely associated with marriage vs. other loving, committed human relationships – sexual intimacy.

The question in the case before the Supreme Court is not how marriage *should* be defined. It is whether the states have the right to define it in a way that incorporates gender if that is the will of the people as exercised through their elected representatives. So if there is an objective, rational basis for making a distinction between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one with regard to marriage (and I think it’s obvious that there is, very much unlike any attempted distinctions based upon race), then it is not unjustly discriminatory and should be left as a matter of policy to be determined by the states, which have always been the main arbiters of civil marriage in the U.S.

It’s true that not every marriage will produce children – but every child has a mother and a father, and if – as a matter of policy – the people choose to continue to acknowledge this reality as part of their state’s positive law, as a means of upholding the reciprocal rights of parents and children, then so be it. Adults are still free to form relationships that fulfill their needs and desires. And people are still free to try and convince a majority of voters in hesitant states that this grand social experiment will work out just fine.

The question before the Supreme court is: with what the civil (not church) marriage currently is, does the equal protection clause of the Constitution give right to same sex couples to enter the legal contract known as civil marriage.

For whatever reason I can’t respond at your comment, so I’m doing it up here. So here I go, I would argue too the fear of enforcing “right thinking” on those who wish to be parents if licenses were required, but since it hasn’t happen for the millions of kids who are adopted, I would have to disagree. And since again, it hasn’t happened for those who have been community caretakers and school-workers, I would have to disagree again.

My biggest fears is corporations. But that’s another story.

Marriages alone aren’t enough to insure that a child is going to grow up in a stable, caring, competent family, and you and I both know that. Speaking from from your own experience (and I’m sure you are a great mom, Ms. Faust) you probably do believe that people stop being selfish when they become parents, but from my own experience watching married couples take care of children that isn’t always true. I’ve seen kids being blatantly ignored by their parents for TV and unimportant pastime, while being force-fed video games and TV, when the child was demanding to spend time with daddy. I’ve seen children round and fat because their parents don’t want to cook for them healthy foods at home, or teach them responsible food choices.

Most cases of child abuses come from the parents. Yes, the parents. “Of child abuse cases in 2012, in over 80% of the cases the parent was the perpetrator.”http://www.safehorizon.org/page/child-abuse-facts-56.html

So no… child abuse mostly happens within the family. Its why so many children are in foster care.

I’m not saying that we have patrols standing guard at households everyday I’m merely suggesting that if we are indeed serious about the children’s right movement, that we have some overseer on what persons are choosing to be parents. Otherwise, it seems kind of strange to advocate marriages because they insure stable homes for children and father/mother figures, but then say that we don’t need oversight on the people who are choosing to be parents. Well, um, isn’t that what the traditional marriage movement is about? discouraging same-sex parenting, which means disallowing certain members of the population to have kids? And besides that, aren’t there other issues besides mother figures and father-figures that affect a child? Like abuse, neglect, poor discipline, over-discipline, and bad parental role models?

Thanks so much for your response. While I agree with much of what you say, it seems to me you are conflating marriage equality with the noted difficulties of same-sex parenting. The two are not the same. You say “the only reason government is in the marriage business at all is that heterosexual sex makes babies”. Marriage also confers other, non-parental, benefits (spousal, death benefits, next-of-kin, health insurance etc.) that gay people in committed relationships cannot access (in some states). That said, it seems to me you cannot sanction one without (in effect) sanctioning the other. There’s the rub.

I really think the arguments for children’s rights are great, but the focus is wrong. Domestic partnerships offer the same property benefits and even parental rights that marriages do. They just have different names. With that said, the children’s right movement has got to rethink their angle at this issue of marriage and kids. Maybe centuries ago marriage was a institution for raising a family, but times have changed. Back then, it was also a institution that bought women on dowry payments and keep them like chattel. Are we going to advocate that? Right now marriages are used to share healthcare benefits, ensure hospital visitation rights, tax reductions, and parental entitlement to a child. Domestic partnerships offer the same thing. What we should be focus on, is why should anyone have entitlement to a child through a property agreement contract at all. And why do people have the right to raise a kid, through buying it or having sex with someone. We regulate adoption to make sure maniacs aren’t having custodial responsibilities over a a state child. We have regulations and background in teachers or those who take care of the mentally disabled and the elderly.
Why isn’t the same effort being put in regulating those who reproduce and raise children? That should be the focus, along with the divorce parenting situation, and the same sex parenting issues. Many issues also.

I am so confused at what you’re trying to say. I’m not even sure if you’re asking a genuine question or being a smarty pants. Nevertheless! the point I was trying to make is that marriages and domestic partnerships are virtually the same. They offer the same tax, social and parental rights that marriages do. So the anti-gay marriage pro- DP argument is intrinsically the tomato/tomãto argument. It’s based solely on names. As child advocates we would be doing the world a favor if we dropped the pro-DP debate and reevaluate WHY anyone has the right to children in the first place. that’s what I’m trying to say.

>>Domestic partnerships offer the same property benefits and even parental rights that marriages do.

Domestic partnership law varies from one jurisdiction to the other, but generally it has not included the right to be recognized as a legal parent to a biologically unrelated child.

>>Maybe centuries ago marriage was a institution for raising a family, but times have changed.

That’s the understanding that’s recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948. That’s also how the gay activists tend to view it, demanding the right to get married and start a family, even though with same-sex couples any such children will be separated from one of their natural parents.

When activists are debating gay marriage, they are talking about the right to start a family.

>>Back then, it was also a institution that bought women on dowry payments and keep them like chattel.

It’s a distortion to say that marriage has treated women as chattel. One of the characteristics of chattel, that is, personal property, is that I can buy or sell it as I desire. If I own a car and I don’t like it, I can sell it off to somebody else. If I want to junk the car, I can do that. Marriage has not worked that way, certainly not in the Christian West. In the US, women have been free to consent or not consent to a marriage. Once married, the law treats them as a single person. Earlier, there was the sense that a ship couldn’t have two captains, the husband would be the captain of the ship. A woman who chose to be unmarried, however, would be her own person.

Things have changed a lot since the early days of the Republic, but we’ve never had a system that treated free women (that is, not slaves) as chattel.

You’ve mentioned a number of benefits that ensue from the legal recognition of marriage, reasons why individuals might choose to get married. However, the personal interest is not always the same as the state’s interest. Historically, the state’s principal interest has been in forming families.

>>And why do people have the right to raise a kid, through buying it or having sex with someone.

Those are two quite different scenarios. When men and women get together, they have babies. They have not only the right, but the responsibility to raise the kid. Buying children is a human rights violation.

>>Why isn’t the same effort being put in regulating those who reproduce and raise children?

>>Domestic partnership law varies from one jurisdiction to the other, but generally it has not included the right to be recognized as a legal parent to a biologically unrelated child.<<>That’s the understanding that’s recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948.<<>demanding the right to get married and start a family, even though with same-sex couples any such children will be separated from one of their natural parent<>”It’s a distortion to say that marriage has treated women as chattel.”<>Marriage has not worked that way, certainly not in the Christian West.<>”Historically, the state’s principal interest has been in forming families”<>When men and women get together, they have babies. They have not only the right, but the responsibility to raise the kid. Buying children is a human rights violation.<>That’s what civil marriage is supposed to do.<<

You sign a contract and you get to beat your child, do whatever you want with his/her education, feed it junk-food, and encourage it hate
black people and sacrifice dogs to Lucifer in the backyard. It doesn't insure that the parents have had background checks on if they are financially competent enough to raise a child, it doesn't insure that the parents who are raising the kids do not have serious mental illnesses that can impair their decision making as caretakers, it doesn't even insure that the parents are not pedophiles, or are emotionally mature enough to inconvenience themselves for the greater good of their children.

It insures that a person can say "my kid doesn't need the polio vaccine, because I'm the parent and I have a right to raise my kid as I want". It also insures married heterosexual couples of children with curable leukemia, to say "I don't agree with modern medicine, so my kid can take naturopathy and die instead."

>You sign a contract and you get to beat your child, do whatever you want with his/her education, feed it junk-food, and encourage it hate
black people and sacrifice dogs to Lucifer in the backyard

Funny that we usually hear that about parents treating their biological children. Except for Lucifer stuff. Though most of those parents force the children to participate in rituals in front of the depiction of a tortured man, and partake in ritual cannibalistic consumption of said man’s blood and flesh.

Well that was a mess… Let’s try this again (ignoring the other comment)

Bad arguments! Bad arguments everywhere! It hurts so bad!

>>Domestic partnership law varies from one jurisdiction to the other, but generally it has not included the right to be recognized as a legal parent to a biologically unrelated child.

No, that’s actually not true…

“…A domestic partnership refers to an opposite sex or same-sex couple who registers as domestic partners.

…Similarly, the female domestic
partner is the presumed (believed to be) the mother of a child if she and the child’s mother were in a domestic partnership at the time of conception or birth, or between conception and birth, and the child was born during the domestic partnership or within 300 days after the domestic partnership ended

[TAKE HOME] …A child born to parents in a domestic partnership is treated like children born to a married couple for legal purposes”

>>”That’s the understanding that’s recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948.”

They probably use that argument because it makes plenty of sense. During that time, segregation and racial inequality were both legally recognized institutions. The fact that you can dismiss an argument simply because a gay person used it, further demonstrates your prejudices. And honestly, I can’t deal with such a irrational and retrogressive way of thinking.

As said, times have changed.

What’s disappointing is that you aren’t listening to my argument. I just said that same-sex parenting as a practice should be queried outside the gay marriage debate. Why didn’t you catch that?

Over a third of children are being born to unmarried parents, marriage is not directly about kids anymore. Yes, lawmakers of the past have said “Government interest in marriage is the kids” But that is not enough, we need to look into how marriage in the context of this society is actually being used in practice, and adjust accordingly to compromise and give people their rights. As as long as domestic partnerships grant people the same rights to kids, and as long as childfree couples wed, the ‘marriage is about kids’ argument has almost no weigh anymore. We need to think this through, creatively.

>>”demanding the right to get married and start a family, even though with same-sex couples any such children will be separated from one of their natural parent”

Straight people do the same with assisted reproduction technology and closed adoption. Closed adoption has been permitting parents to write false birth certificates for their adopted children for centuries. Only recently has it caught up with adoptees and has pissed them off. All under the legal institution of ‘traditional marriage’

>>”It’s a distortion to say that marriage has treated women as chattel.”

Not if you have a realistic and accurate interpretation of history

“The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.”
-Sir William Blackstone, 1765

Ancient cultures such as Classical Greece and Mesopotamia “treated women like property” and often times restricted her rights to get jobs, to become politicians, vote, read, or disobey her husband.

Read the classic “Things Fall Apart” novel, where a village man was asking his community’s justice system to get a refund on his bride-price, after his wife was stolen back to the family he bought her from.

>>”Marriage has not worked that way, certainly not in the Christian West.”

Because of the women’s right movement. In the ‘Christian West’ women couldn’t vote, weren’t allowed to own property, and were forced into marriages they didn’t want. Currently rape in some states is ok only when done by the husband. Some time ago, it was ok in all states.

Your religion had almost no dictation over the justice system. Most of it was used to promote racist institutions like slavery and Westward expansion (Native American Genocide).

Times have f*cking changed.

>>”Historically, the state’s principal interest has been in forming families”

And historically phones were designed to communicate audibly with other people. Now they take pictures, have internet access, and can even allow you to communicate with others face to face. What’s your point? In a day and age where most children are being born to unmarried parents, is this really an argument at all?

That was the past. Now let’s see what’s going on today. People want property rights, tax cuts and health benefits, and sometimes they don’t want kids. In fact 78% of the gay population doesn’t have kids. Let them have marriages, and we can simply reevaluate people’s intrinsic ‘right’ to a child, through a contract in the first place.

>>”When men and women get together, they have babies. They have not only the right, but the responsibility to raise the kid. Buying children is a human rights violation.”

You merely changed the wording and ended the argument there. Do child molesters who procreate a child have the ‘responsibility’ to them? Do people who prostitute children have the ‘responsibility’ to raise their child?

You are making a blanket assumption that marriages and biological parentage will automatically make people competent parents, which is very silly. Those who’ve been rapped and molested by their married fathers can attest themselves that a marriage contract didn’t stop his actions.

I’m not saying that children do not deserve the right to be raised by their biological parents, I’m saying that parentage as a practice needs to be evaluated and regulated more. And getting hitched doesn’t magically make you a person competent enough to raise a child. I’m also saying that children’s right advocates need to step away from the traditional marriage arguments and try to find a solution that appeases the times, or you’ll never be heard by the masses.

>>”That’s what civil marriage is supposed to do.”

You sign a contract and you get to beat your child, do whatever you want with his/her education, feed it junk-food, and encourage it hate
black people and sacrifice dogs to Lucifer in the backyard. It doesn’t insure that the parents have had background checks on if they are financially competent enough to raise a child, it doesn’t insure that the parents who are raising the kids do not have serious mental illnesses that can impair their decision making as caretakers, it doesn’t even insure that the parents are not pedophiles, or are emotionally mature enough to inconvenience themselves for the greater good of their children.

It insures that a person can say “my kid doesn’t need the polio vaccine, because I’m the parent and I have a right to raise my kid as I want”. It also insures married heterosexual couples of children with curable leukemia, to say “I don’t agree with modern medicine, so my kid can take naturopathy and die instead.”

I retract the praise I offered previously, so to laud your writing elsewhere. I now see that you have some serious issue with Christianity and heterosexuality. No offence, but it appears that you do have a log on your shoulder that needs looking at. Perhaps then you will be able to reflect on the etymological fallacies you have littered this thread with in respect to the historical significance of women’s role in society, family, marriage and religion.

Briefly, the very term ‘domestic partnership’ was invented by a homosexualist – in California. It was meant to resolve the very questions you’re trying to address (it seems). Well, it obviously hasn’t – some of us now realize that it was merely a step on the activists’ journey to take down ‘heteronormativity’.

The copious references to the horrible things heterosexual parents do to their children are getting tiresome. In fact (and it is a fact), there are far more complex societal and cultural factors which have led to a greater frequency of all those deviant parenting behaviors and patterns which you mention. Despite this, the fact remains (and it is a fact) that a child growing up with her or his biological parents is far more likely to have better life chances and outcomes into adulthood than one who does not. Guess what makes this possible? H-e-t-e-r-o normative structures. The same structures that have grown out of the history you are so keen to rubbish, and which gave birth to the democratic principles and education system that have given you the rights and capacity to articulate such vitriol against it.

Lastly, let me tell you a brief story – as a parable to illuminate the real argument you appear to make. I just feel like writing one, just so maybe you’ll get some perspective. Hopefully.

There was once a man who lived near a water hole. The water hole was replenished seasonally when the rains came, and so sustained a small population of fish. The man learned from his father how to fish in the water hole, and was often able to feed his family with the fish he caught on his line, just as his father taught him to do. Occasionally, he was not able to catch any fish, but he persisted, always using the fishing techniques that his father had passed on to him, and which in turn came from his father’s father, and so on. Sure there were some times when the family had to tighten their belts around their rumbling bellies – but they always got a feed in the end, and sometimes they could even feast!

One day, however, a stranger moved in and settled near the fisherman’s home. They soon became friends – the fisherman was in awe of his neighbor, as he knew so much about progress, the changed times, and all that. Seeing that they had become friends, the two started to go fishing in the waterhole together. Very soon, the new neighbor began to ridicule and berate the fisherman for his antiquated methods of fishing, for the hit-and-miss results, and for his clinging to an old and outdated tradition. “Times have f***g changed”, he said. And then he said that he knew a better way to catch fish.

And so it was that, next time they went fishing together, the new neighbor brought along a bag that seemed fairly weighted down. When they arrived at the waterhole, the neighbor said with a smirk on his face, “I am really tired of your bad arguments. Bad arguments about how reliable and stable your fishing technique is. I brought along something that will fix it once and for all. We will be rid of your anachronistic ways. I will show you!”. Then he pulled a bundle of explosives out of the bag, lit the fuse, and threw it towards the middle of the waterhole. He quickly grabbed the fisherman and ducked behind a large stump.

There was an almighty explosion. When the fisherman and his neighbor emerged from their cover, they were amazed to see hundreds of fish scattered around. They collected all that they could carry and went back to their families. A great feast followed, and everyone was happy and contended – for weeks!

But then, there came the time when their food run out. So the fisherman and his neighbor went back to the waterhole to get the main ingredients for a repeat feast. Alas! The waterhole looked brackish, and devoid of life. Once again they threw their explosives at it, but this time there was no fish to be collected, and they went back to their families empty-handed. Soon, the neighbor abandoned the place and went away. The fisherman went back to the waterhole and tried to fish it again, with his trusty old fishing line. But the waterhole which has fed generations in his family was dead … F**g progress and the changed times had murdered it.

Gosh why don’t you hush. Your answers are a mile long. Keep them sweet and short. BTW Only real definition of marriage is between a man & woman. Gays can’t redefine marriage. Simple as that. The real marriage is what produces children and that is how it should be. NO ABORTION! Don’t murder your own child.

I see your point but really, is the government going to get into the business of giving parenting licenses? Do we really want a world where the government regulates who can and can’t have children? It seems to me that many on the religious right would be very opposed to this.

Yes we do want a world where there is some kind of overseer on who takes in kids. And I’m quite sure the incest-survivors, those who’ve lived through abuse and trauma, would much appreciate it. Sure religious groups will get upset but who cares! And if you genuinely see a child as a person who is entitled to responsible trustworthy caretakers, then yes just like how monitor adoption, foster care, and elderly and disabled caretakers it would make sense to regulate parenting too.

And who is going to watch the watchers to make sure they are doing everything right? These are utopian fantasies that exist because we all recognize what the Bible teaches to be true. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, including the watchers.

Comparing social workers doing background checks on potential parents to make sure they aren’t crazy to companies biologically engineering and manufacturing human beings, is quite the jump. And to be honest if it were true, I haven’t really seen that argument being used to protest against the intense regulation on adoptive parenthood.

Lemme take a stab: I bet that within a few years those licenses would hinge on whether or not the intended parents were “right thinking.”. Already in Canada, children can inform on their parents if they do not hold to politically correct statements. Parents have to get permission from the state to homeschool or opt out of certain curriculum (sometimes they can’t). It’s all very Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution, and in some places in China parents still have to apply at the local magistrate to get married and then have children. The state decides in both of those cases. And if a pregnancy isn’t approved? Well, sometimes the state terminates the pregnancy against the wishes of the mother.

Also, becoming a parent changes you. Most of us start out really selfish, and then when we get married and have kids, we become less selfish. I know several amazing single young women who probably would not have made it through the “approval process” of this hypothetical licensing but who have been transformed through the wonder of bearing a child, sustaining their babies lives through their own body, and then being delighted in watching them grow- knowing that their sacrifice and love made it happen.

The intense scrutiny of adoptive parents is warranted. It should be in place for those creating children via third-party reproduction as well (if we cannot get the practice banned altogether.) Because while we can find examples of abusive bio parents, statistically biological parents are the safest place for children. Giving parental authority to a non-biological adult is a BIG DEAL. Keep an eye out for new articles of kids suffering abuse/mistreatment. The headline will often say “parents accused of XYZ”, but if you read the details, most of those situations involve at least one step-parent or non-biological adult. The most dangerous person in a child’s life is the mother’s live-in boyfriend. Overall: honor and strengthen biological ties to both parents whenever possible, and be very wary of transferring custody to non-bio adults.

So, in the past, women and even men had no choice in marriage. It was a transaction and decision made by supposedly wiser heads of households. No freedom to even have serious romantic relationships with those of your choosing. Are you in favor of such concepts with love and marriage, with choice taken from the individual and placed in the hands of a “wiser” head?

If you’re not, you’re a hypocrite. You advocate that generation of offspring be a right and choice taken from individuals and placed in the hands of “wiser” heads of the state. What makes you believe that society at large has right and ownership of children higher than a parent? Or country protects individual rights. That includes the right to have children, also the basic rights of a child. Having children is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Places without reproductive freedom like China care nothing about individual rights, only what benefits the state. You seemed to be more concerned about how others having children affect you.

Hey Atomic! I had to streamline a 5 min conversation into a short blog post- I am not that succinct in real life (see video clips) but tried to include her major objections and a summary of what I said to her. I’m sure the barista who was listening in would not have recorded this exchange the same way- it was tense and messier than it appears on paper. But it did begin as a confrontation and end as a civil exchange. I am seriously so thankful for CanaVox which has prepared me to navigate all these subject (third-party reproduction, the purpose of marriage, divorce, etc). It allows me to jump all over in conversations like this. We have two LDS leaders on our CanaVox team. Check it out. You would LOVE it!!

Wow, we have so many experts here at ATB- social scientists, psychologists and pediatricians- best to leave that part of the debate to those of you that know the data from those disciplines.

Spring has sprung in a big way in my neck of the woods, and I’ve spent the past several weeks studying and documenting the ritual courtship, mating and offspring rearing and fledging or weaning behaviors (generally propagation) that define, and ensure the continued existence of the natural world. Well, I am happy to report that absolutely nothing has changed regarding these necessary behaviors that define the very existence of any species. It is as it has always been for millions of years. With the same sex “rights” issue always just slightly tangential to my observations of/in the natural sphere, I’ve yet to observe a single episode or event of same sex selfishness expressed in our natural world.

Perhaps it is that nature (however you might choose to define its processes per big bang/evolution or creation) has actually already determined what actually is the best union/pairing to rear young. Perhaps, as I observe the eternal drama of parents (biological all, unless some parasitic event has occurred) sacrificing their own well-being, threatening their own survival over the long term, but, ever focused on their short term mandate to successfully rear young, battle continuous threats to their own lives, as well as their ability to propagate, to ensure the next generation of X species is safely and securely (healthy and capable) in place to continue this natural and necessary cycle.

The pair-bonding that ensures the continued existence of any species did not ‘evolve’ out of the selfishness of a minority proportion of that species, but, the pair-bonding, however fluid and challenging, evolved to ensure the best chance for survival of their offspring. There is no debate here. And, there is no debate regarding the inculcation over eons of those necessary pair-bonding systems by our own species. Monogamy (as defined before the insanity of PC took over) naturally evolved as the best possible pair-bonding required to optimize the success of humans. There is no biology, chemistry, physics (no ‘hard’ science), philosophy or anthropology that can deny that absolute truth.

So now, due only to aberrant (atypical) social pressures, not organically derived (grassroots) but politically-ideologically derived, we are faced with addressing the demands of some minority of a minority subset (2%, maybe?) of our overall population that is using unnatural leverage provided by corrupt politicians eager to buy votes to ensure their own continued survival/enrichment, and similarly disposed activist judges- all of whom for purely selfish reasons are willing to deny the very real, observable realities of nature.

Man created the social systems that now challenge nature. They are, as are all Man’s creations, highly fallible.

Man will not deny nature for long before adverse consequences to our species are witnessed.

It isn’t the ‘homosexualists’ own children being sacrificed on their hedonistic altar, it is ours. Homosexuality, by definition and as practiced, is selfish (a biological term) behavior. Selfish individuals are not selected by nature to raise young for the obvious reasons.

Perhaps there is something to the social observation that those unable to create are inclined to destroy-

Hi, Katy: Thank you for all you do! I was at the March, too. I wish I had known what you look like. I would have introduced myself. I would love to have met you! You were brave to go to Starbucks with that sign!

Dear madam.
I’ve never commented on your site before and I won’t again. I just want to say.
In my decades long experience it’s your kind the reasonable who don’t hate us but want to dialogue our rights to be ourselves away who are more frightening and more dangerous than someone who smashes our windows and threatens and spits on us on the street.
You say you care about the children when the fact of the matter is you hate the idea of LGBT people just being. You can no longer attack us as evil, as perverted as warped as broken because our families and friends and neighbours see us for who we are and it’s not who you make us out to be. You are trying to make out we are somehow imperfect by attacking the children we love and care for and bring up.
I hope your side lose. I hope your side lose so hard you and your kind have to pack your ideas into your little baskets and clear out.
That is all.
Sara L Nield. Bisexual atheist Conservative.

My Dearest Bigot,
You always are so gracious. I wanted to put the Ms. Nield comment in perspective. You may have to take off your “bigot” crown and pass it to one more deserving

“Oh dear! No tears for the Jews of Paris? No condemnation of anti-Semitism. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!”

Okay then. She dare talks about hate when she is relishing in people being gunned down–“Oh dear” a raging anti-semite. And I am sure she hopes others pack their bags and leave. “Families will be kept together, Board the trains, families will be kept together” What is it with these people and their Jew hating–Talk about EVIL and dangerous.

My parents divorced when I was seven. My dad met another woman & wasn’t available for me. The damage done doesn’t ever heal, the effects never reversed. I’m almost 50 now & realize that my parents were purely selfish; it was all about them & their issues. My siblings & I were sacrificed on the altar of divorce & for those children brought into same sex homes, its not much different.
The child’s the loser, no matter which way it goes, one biological parent will be missing so the adults in the home can freely indulge in the lifestyle of their choice.

If I may, FyVa ProLd, it’s both conceivable and not unheard of to find a gay man or woman divorcing his or her spouse, marrying someone of the same sex, while simultaneously getting major custody of the children from the previous relationship. No matter whether you maintain that having kids is instrumentally related (same-sex marriage advocates) or inherently tied (same-sex marriage detractors) to the institution, marriage has widely accepted connotations about starting a family. SCOTUS formally recognizing a right to same-sex marriage would codify divorce as a normalized means of obtaining children.

As same-sex couples cannot procreate, the only foreseeable ways they can have kids is via divorce, surrogacy, adoption and IVF. It’s commonly acknowledged that divorce and adoption often are difficult for children, and now, it appears alternative reproductive methods are beginning to be called out as also traumatizing by those who were conceived by such processes. Mrs. Faust recognizes that “marriage equality” equalizes the inherent differences between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples — one category is fertile, the other, infertile. Bearing in mind that civil marriage, as a state endorsement, is a conferment of value, it follows that all the means that two-partner unions utilize to start families are equal, i.e. valued equally. Mrs. Faust and others find this absurd because social science, anecdotal evidence and just plain old common sense from life experience tells us this, to put it bluntly, is morally obtuse.

Apparently you haven’t herd of Alfred Kinsey? And the point is, actually, that divorce usually has a negative impact on children, not least because they are likely to grow up without one or both biological parents. Guess what children also lack when they find themselves with sodomite or dyke ‘parents’?
Get the point? Perhaps not …

The use of hateful terms, such as, sodomite and dyke, are offensive caricatures of humans beings that are absolutely entitled to be treated with the same respect as you would expect.

Your ‘handle’ implies that you might be of Asian ethnicity, so, try to imagine someone slurring you personally by disrespecting your heritage and using racial epithets to dehumanize you in an attempt to leverage the debate in their favor. You should be able to make your case without stooping to such a low, and very transparent tactic.

Being merely heterosexual in no way implies some inherent superiority. You have made some excellent points regarding the literature and data supporting traditional opposite sex parenting. Don’t close the door on the reception of your argument by collapsing into bigoted, ignorant diatribes. That’s lazy, and cowardly.

Jae, I don’t buy into simplistic slogans. I tried reason and respect before, I have no more time for homosexualists (before you act all outraged again, look up the definition, it’s not the same as same-sex attracted). It’s the semiotic reality of the homosexualist campaign which I now resist with my own catch words. I take care to use appropriate concepts to express this resistance, and I do it on purpose – it is the only way to shock people into understanding the reality of what is happening to our society. You may find it distasteful. Good. Perhaps you may then realize that you have been conditioned to react like you have just done. I, for one, refuse to be labelled “homophobic” or “bigot” (or any of the hundreds other epithets that homosexualists have developed especially for us) without resisting. I am not ‘heterosexual’, that’s a label invented at the same time that the word ‘homosexual’ was – to construct and portray a binary of ‘them and us’ based on sexual behavior. I am not a ‘breeder’. I am just a person, like the 95% or so other humans in the world. I am darned if I will let someone tell me that I am defined by my sexuality or that I discriminate against someone simply because I refuse to accept that some sexual practices are ‘normal’, and to teach this to my children.

I hope you understand how you are being used. Reflect on your post – do you see how it is pregnant with terms that homosexualists want you to use? ‘Merely heteorsexual’, ‘traditional … parenting’, ‘bigoted’, ‘ignorant’, ‘dehumanize’…and so on. And you uttered all of these simply because I refuse to call sodomy ‘gay’? Do you not realize how disempowered you have become within this whole charade? What are you by contrast? ‘Straight’? Who labelled you thus? (do you really need a hint?). What do these words mean, what do they signify – this straight vs gay? Do you understand the semiotic framework here? Let me help you a little. You are (pardon me for assuming) straight – i.e., boring? conservative? not much fun? They are ‘gay’ – i.e., happy? fun? someone you want to be with? So what happens when someone like me comes along and labels it differently? You then must jump to the homosexualists’ defense, if you wish to be allowed to continue in the ‘game’ which they have designed the rules for. Such a good boy or girl, you are! Really? Have you people become so conditioned, so brainwashed by the homosexualist dogma that you cannot think for yourself?

This is not about civility and rational argument. Understand that it is a war on society. A subversive war taking strategic advantage of the Information Age and Globalization, and carried out through the popular media – and, yes, on blogs like this. Society is a ‘heteronormative’ construct, it’s what gives shape and meaning to the lives of most people, Asians and sexual deviants included. What the homosexualists aim to do is to destroy it, and replace it with their idea of society – merely because their twisted ideology imagines that sexual deviants have been ‘oppressed’ by the rest of society. They think that the only way for them is to dismantle ‘hetero’ social institutions, and to deconstruct our culture – just have a read of queer theory for a bit, if you can stomach it, to see what I mean. If you’re interested, I am happy to provide some links.

So, pardon me for offending your carefully groomed sensibilities, but I, for one, will continue to fight and resist the homosexualist discourse in the only way I can. It is simple, really: I refuse to use the discourse mandated for my use by homosexualist political ‘correctness’. Wherever I encounter it, I use appropriate terminology and concepts to counter the propaganda.

Lastly, yes I have some Asian heritage. And I find your patronizing comments about ‘how I would feel’ crude and racist, at best. I may not express myself as well as I would like to (English being my third language), but I do know what brainwashing is and does, how political marketing works, and when people are being misled. And I have researched the homosexualist movement for almost a decade now.

Katy ( I can’t reply directly to your post), I like what you do and I have read your work, I have also followed up on the stuff that has happened in response to your advocacy. I have also read the briefs submitted by you and other children of same-sex parents. The ‘terminology’ I use is degrading for you because you are buying into the very discourse you are trying to resist, perhaps thinking that this will at least allow you to ‘reason’ with the aggressors, for the sake of children. Good luck with that – I really mean it. But be prepared for some disappointments.

I am happy to leave your blog, and will do so after this posting. I don’t feel comfortable here after your interpretation of how I express myself. As a parting bit of well-intended advise, and you haven’t already done so, I urge you to read the Kirk and Madsen political marketing manifesto. I would love for you to realize that you’re actually helping this movement through your blog by allowing homosexualists and their supporters to use it to promote their propaganda.

Here is an extract you might wish to reflect on:

“The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.”

And please look at the next paragraph:
“And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent–only later his unsightly derriere!”

I hope you take an interest in this literature, and perhaps go on and read their 1989 book, which enlarges on their activist principles. You might then see what this movement intends for the children you’re trying to protect.

Dania, Excellent comments on the language. The Kirk and Madsen book is called “After the Ball” and you would think that it is a history written about what they have done but actually it is a blueprint that they set out to follow in 1989. It is interesting that Christians who comment on this subject feel that it is necessary to say “…but I have gay friends..,” during their conversations. The creation of new words such as homosexual has been used to create classes of people who are then supposedly protected by the 14th Amendment, rather than everyone having the rights that are given them by their creator. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 says “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” We are to use the weapons of God’s word and the reason he has given us to destroy the arguments set out by those who oppose him and yet as 1 Peter 3:15 says “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” God created man in his own image and so we hold these things in tension. I like to win arguments. It is more difficult to win the person, yet just because we fail doesn’t mean we should give up.

Katy, I think you’ve done an excellent job on here. Thank you for showing courage to take on such a critical issue and help bring some light to it. Christians for the most part are avoiding this issue. I think some lack courage but there is a large group that just isn’t equipped to present good arguments, whether Biblical or natural law. People are not going to get into a fight when they don’t know how to use the weapons and are unsure of themselves.

I guess I am actually going to come down and defend Dania Ng. Sure, I have ambivalent feelings about using terms, that for better or worse, have become offensive. And I don’t want to be bellicose. But the journalist and philosopher with knowledge in mass media theory and political philosophy in me has to admit that Dania is not wrong.

Civility and reasoned deliberation is a virtue of the Right and the intellectual heritage of this country. The Left has no qualms about taking advantage of that good natured charity to further its own ends. The Left isn’t about the truth; it’s about what’s being done, taking action, and as such are more prone to the ends-justify-the-means reasoning. Hence, the deception, Orwellian abuse of language that frames the language and rules of the debate in its favor. For example with gay activists, gay, bans, not being allowed to marry, marriage “equality,” “fight against h8!” — notice the spelling is especially targeted to appeal to my millennial generation and younger who pioneered abbreviating English like “2” “u” “lol” “rofl” etc. And if you will allow me to coin my own phrase, Kirk and Madsen’s After the Ball is a heterophobic manifesto explicitly intending to lay down the strategy to deceive the American public into unwitting embracing gay “rights,” which the gay lobby has adopted at large almost uncannily. It doesn’t take much reading of the book to realize Kirk and Madsen have as much disdain for heterosexuals as they claim we have for them. We’re pawns to be manipulated and used to further their elite and noble ends.

Dania recognizes what many conservatives don’t: We are at war. For the Left, they’ve been waging it against us ever since Marx. And I can’t blame her for using taboo words, as there already has been a chilling effect on speech and expression in this country. Secondly, we don’t understand the belligerent that stands before us. Those who serially defame and deceive are not good people. The villain plays the victim so well. Notice how quick and decisive they are to demonize and label their political opposition, the Christian Right and its values, as the scum of the Earth and inculcate it through the major cultural and information disseminators of society, e.g., education, news, film and television. None of this by accident.

Furthermore, leaders of the gay community don’t exactly have the best track record to what would seem to be the right thing to do for its own constituents. Read And the Band Played On by Randy Stilts and see the movie based on it starring Matthew Modine and Ian McKellan. The leaders of the San Francisco gay community, when the CDC informed them that they should close the bathhouses because the organization had strong indication that it was playing a large part in the AIDS epidemic, they refused to because the bathhouses were both a form of sexual liberation and a symbol of it. Let me be clear: the leaders of the gay community preferred the access to have sex and a symbol of it than protect those they represent from one of the most deadly and pernicious diseases in medicine. “Marriage” is another symbol and obtaining it will likely have little to no effect on again the real empirical crises afflicting the gay community: STDs, domestic abuse, depression, eating disorders, alcoholism and other mental health issues. That’s our enemy, people. I’m talking about Big Gay here, not your gay friend or neighbor. Big Gay rather negligently sacrifice its own people for the affirmation of an identity based in the unfettered expression of their own sexual urges.

Katy, I respect your right to do monitor your forum for civil discourse. You’re true tolerance and earnestness has made a real impact in this debate for those who have followed it. And Dania could stand to be a little less prone to shoot from the hip here, but we need to go more on the offensive, a good journalist needs to go and investigate HRC, GLAAD and the like and see what my journalist sensibilities are tingling about. Given what they do in public and how open and bold they are about anti-democratic and subversive their tactics are, it makes one wonder what happens behind closed doors and when the camera isn’t on. My instincts tells me they’re dirty. We need to start attacking their public figures and being as loud and raucous about it that it gains national attention. We need to also financially hurt the sympathetic journalistic mainstream media to make them less partisan. We need to let the world know the truth that people Elton John deprived his children of meaningful relationships with their biological parents. It’s not calumny because it’s true, and it’s not done with what’s known as actual malice. And we need to invest in better semiotics, symbols and branding. I’m sorry, but we’re at war and our sloth has nearly cost us marriage, which undoubtedly have other deleterious repercussions on the liberty we enjoy. For starters, see Memories Pizza.

In contrast, I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading the comments of popular gay bloggers who routinely denigrate and demonize their opponents. The comment section is rife with personal attacks and littered with vulgarity. And you know what? No one speaks up. No one says “hey, you’re taking things too far” or “can you disagree without talking about her genitalia?” But they don’t. I love that there is peer-policing taking place on this blog.

I don’t think ‘attacking” Dania is exactly what happened in my or Katy’s rejection of the use of unacceptable slurs and the request to be careful not to lose the very good message among the usual claims of bigotry; obviously, we are all very aware of the sensitivity of the language that those who oppose the radical-activists agenda must use. And, no one was insulting Dania when alluding to her race – but, it sure seems to have hit a nerve since she felt the need to ‘strike’ back (revealing the slightest hue of a perhaps too huge ego). That was my intention. We all have our soft spots (especially me).

I believe Dania may have learned more about how to debate this issue as a result of our rejection of her use of disparaging terms than those of us all too aware of the double-standard at play here. Dania certainly has a talent for accurately dissecting and then relaying critical information, but, Dania does not have a talent for protecting the message from committing suicide by drowning in the perception of bias and bigotry of the messenger. Ultimately, if Dania does not adapt her/his style according to the present culture’s rules of engagement, Dania and others just like Dania will ensure the loss this battle. We can win this battle, ultimately, because we have the truth on our side, no matter how handicapped by language we may be.

I hope Dania gets over her/his minor ego wounds and comes back to re-engage. We need the Dania’s of this troubled world on our side.

Same sex marriage is the same as divorce to the child. Divorce was never being considered by the SCOTUS as a means to force it upon all states and their citizens, as a protection/right under the US Constitution. Divorce is not a direct threat to our first founding principle and freedom- Freedom of Religion.

1. Should single persons be banned from adopting children?
2. Should single persons with adopted child(ren) be banned from future (opposite sex) marriage?
3. Should single persons with adopted children be banned from cohabiting with an unmarried partner?
4. Should single persons with adopted children be banned from cohabiting with an unmarried partner of same sex?
5. If two cohabiting partners with an adopted child marry, does it benefit the child by giving more protection and stability, or it’s detrimental to the child?

And, my point is that decisions about the best care for kids should be about the kids and not about the adults.

The opposition to same sex marriage isn’t about depriving adults of their guilty pleasures, or same sex partners of their ‘rights’ (although, marriage is not a right), it’s about ensuring children have the best possible care.

And, it certainly isn’t about bigotry or hatred of anyone, as the same sex marriage proponents would have you believe. That is the lie that must be sold in order to win the debate (which is a small battle in a greater war being waged by radicals that will not stop the carnage at marriage) – by any means necessary.

What the radicals are doing in the same sex marriage arena is no different than what the radicals were doing in Ferguson or what the radicals are doing in Baltimore.

“5. Opposite sex (natural) marriage of the biological parents only is optimally beneficial to the child. Every other family unit relationship is secondary (i.e. grandparents, sibling parents, 2nd order relation-parents, step-parents, single parents, gay parents, state parents).”

Yet I don’t see your side submitting amicus briefs in court trying to ban parenting made by grandparents, sibling parents, 2nd order relation-parent, step-parents, single parents, state parents, etc. Weird, huh? Only same-sex parenting must be stopped for the sake of the children, all those other types of sub-par parenting… not so much. But there’s no anti-gay animus going on at all, right? Oh, okay.

By the way, there is no such thing as “natural” marriage. Marriage doesn’t exist in nature. But you already knew that, didn’t you?

First off the court is considering one issue and none of the other ones you offered. Secondly and more importantly it is genderless marriage which when put into law has redefined parenting as a consequence of putting into place. Animus towards gay people? As far as I know everyone acknowledges that so called homosexuals have the same rights in the same way as everyone else. Wouldn’t that be the essence of equality?

We need marriage as an institution because unlike snakes our little ones don’t just slither off and make their own way in the world. They actually need a long term commitment from their parents to their well being. That is what marriage encourages and recognizes. It is natural in that in every society around the world throughout time there has existed some institution like marriage for this purpose. So, actually it does exist in nature, in fact it is pretty universal. By the way animals violate other animal’s “rights” all the time. It actually takes a civilization based on families that teach their children to restrain themselves that allows us to live in nation where we can dialog about these issues. Father’s are especially important in providing this restraint to thier offspring in their teen years. As you may know teens have lots of energy and their fathers help them direct it in positive ways. Clearly there are many others who would direct it in destructive ways which end up leading to the breakdown of society and civilization and the institution of more government measures and officials in order to deal with more problems.

“As far as I know everyone acknowledges that so called homosexuals have the same rights in the same way as everyone else”

Yeah apparently not SudanPhil, considering civil unions are only legal in 33 states and organizations like NOM and the AFA and the FRC (all three groups that Katy has aligned herself with, either formally or informally by the way) all OPPOSE civil unions. Not only do these people wish to “protect the institution of marriage” as they so often claim, they also wish for all benefits and protection for homosexual couples to be stripped! They don’t want homosexuals to have any rights or any legal protection that heterosexual marriages get!

So don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining Conservatives. It’s your side that has made this so contentious. It’s your side that has fought tooth and nail, not only for “traditional marriage” but against any benefits for gay couples. If you had simply allowed for federal civil unions to be legalized then there may not even be a push for gay marriage, but since you didn’t, the gay lobby is going for gold and I can’t blame them.

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to interact with you on some of the most important issues of our day and about the direction our country should go. I think there are some things that we can agree on just based on what you have shared here. First I see that you have a deep sense of right and wrong and you want people to believe what you believe because you believe it to be true and best for everyone to believe the truth. Even though I differ with you on what the truth is I feel the same way about it.

Just to tell you a little about myself so that you understand where I’m coming from as a Christian I do hold certain things to be true.
1. The first thing you have to do to become a Christian is to admit that you have been wrong and that there is nothing that you can do to correct thing but place your trust in what Jesus has done for you (Romans 5:8)
2. We are called to seek the truth (John 8:31-32)
3. We are not omniscient nor do we become so when we become Christians.
4. All humans are created in God’s image which is where we get our value from. (Genesis 1:27)
5. Everyone has emotional attachments to the things they believe and it is difficult for us to consider opposing viewpoints. However, God has given us a rational brain with which to think and consider and since we Christians are not omniscient we need do our best to be as charitable as possible to the other person’s viewpoint and not mischaracterize it.

Having said that I am committed to truth and if what I believe isn’t true than I should abandon it. In fact I find myself regularly changing my mind on things as I realize that my previous viewpoint was inadequate.

Now as to what you wrote, why would opposing civil unions not fit with everyone having the same rights in the same way as everyone else? Our founders believed that rights belonged to individuals and not groups. It’s the same rights in the same way, not different rights in a different way. This was actually articulated in the Iowa Supreme Court opinion legalizing genderless marraige in Iowa where they basically said that if a person doesn’t want to use a right and wants something different then they are entitled to that. Following that logic wouldn’t a bisexual person have a right to marry a person of each sex?

As for raining on Conservatives it is raining on Conservatives, but it isn’t just raining on Conservatives it is going to be raining on everybody just as the last change to marriage, aka No Fault Divorce, is raining on everybody right now. Please don’t feed that line to me about if we had simply allowed civil unions then there would not have been a push for genderless marriage. In our state, Washington, they had a 3 step plan for implementing it starting with civil unions and ending with marriage which is exactly what they did.

You don’t understand my argument and I don’t care that you’re a Christian, it has nothing to do with the federal recognition of marital benefits and protections. I’ll just say first off that you didn’t touch on the fact that Conservatives DO NOT SUPPORT gay civil unions. I’d like to ask Katy, if she happens to be reading this post, if she supports civil unions. So do you Katy? Do you think we should allow gays to have federally-recognized benefits to their unions at all? Not marriage, or the preserving the “definition” of marriage, or any of that nonsense that you people made up, but do you think gays deserve to have their unions protected and recognized by the federal government, yes or no? Because the groups you have advocated for have time and time again fought against civil unions.

I don’t know about other conservative but you are certainly right about me. I don’t speak for Katy but I don’t support civil unions of any kind for anybody or group. Maybe you could explain how the right to such a thing comes from God and that governments are established to protect. You should understand that that is the context of the system that has been set up and passed on to us. Civil Unions is not the endpoint. The destruction of marriage is and I’ll be happy to provide you with sources on that of the sex radicals if you are not aware of that. This is simply another step down that path. These questions are about 10 years behind the times since I’m not aware of anybody fighting for civil unions today. Do you support using the government to rearrange society ala what Mrs. Clinton said recently “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” That sounds like an awful lot of government intervension in people’s lives to attempt to change the way we think. Kind of like re-education camps. Are you against the right of association? Are you against the rights of conscience? Those are questions you need to answer.

Allowing 2-3% of the population to have the same rights is not destroying marriage. Straight marriage will not be affected at all by the government recognizing same sex marriage. You can go cry about your “redefinition” somewhere else because I’m sane enough to see how ridiculous it is to cry over a definition.

Now I sincerely think Clinton had a point in that quote and that you missed it. If you think she was calling for re-education or for people’s minds to be forcibly changed then you are not thinking logically. There are certain societal norms that need to be re-examined, any one can see that, just look at how many young black men are locked up every year for holding a small bag with some herbs in it.

The fact of the matter is that you can have very good religious reasons to reject gay marriage based on what you believe marriage should be or that you think marriage should be restricted to a certain group, that’s at least logical. To be against gay marriages is in my opinion inherently homophobic and hateful. You are specifically saying that you don’t think gays should not only be included in marital rights but that homosexual couples should be forbidden from ANY federal or state rights at all whatsoever. That simply by being homosexual you should be restricted from being seen as a legitimate couple by law. If you are against civil unions then you are a bigot in my opinion.

Sorry I would like to correct the above comment I made- I meant to say I believe being against civil unions is inherently homophobic. I think you can be for traditional marriage and be perfectly rational though

Ms. Faust only allows corrections to posts by her friends who agree with her a bit too fervently and make offensive personal attacks against LGBT commenters. For an example, please see the previous “Study the Studies” post.

I love you and I’m praying for you and I want to hear what you have to say even though I don’t agree with it. Thanks for taking time to interact with me on these important issues. I know a lot a people are coming to this discussion with a lot of hurt in their past and I want to keep that in mind. My arguments are not aimed at individuals but at belief systems that set themselves up against the knowledge of God. I do change my mind on things but in order for me to consider doing so you would need to give a good argument to show why my view is wrong rather. Ridicule isn’t an argument whatever view point it is coming from although it does generally have the effect of shutting down the conversation.

It’s not the 2-3% of the population that is the matter here anymore than 5-6% of the population was the problem when No Fault Divorce was passed. The problem is that it is changing the “rules of the game.” As we can see from No Fault Divorce that has affected all our lives. There is no test that a government agent is going to administer to determine whether a person is a homosexual or a heterosexual and therefore can only apply for one or the other types of marriage. There is now going to be one kind of marriage (at least in the state’s eyes) and that is genderless marriage. Whether you agree with it or not, and I clearly don’t, it also redefines parenthood and how children are attached to their mother’s and father’s and this is clearly where it is a threat to every family. Why? Rather than the state simply recognizing paternity as the husband of the woman having the child, as it has done, it now is assigning parenthood. You say “No bid deal because they are doing that with adoption.” True but adoption occurs after the rights of the natural parents have been terminated. Now the state will be assigning children to people with no need to terminate bio rights of parents. This is an injustice to the child, as if children belonged to the state and are their property to assign to families. If that doesn’t bother you or others then I don’t think there is anything that I can say that will.

Young black men are being locked up precisely because of this issue and our government’s involvement in it over the decades. Before the Civil Rights era blacks had a higher incidence of marriage then whites and from the Johnson administration on the government has incentivized fatherless homes, especially in the black community. They illustrate exactly what we are saying. Families need fathers. Fathers are the ones that direct the hearts of their children to productive enterprises, especially during the teenage years. Father’s are the ones who have been exiled from the families by No Fault Divorce. What the government needs to stop doing is incentivizing family types that will certainly lead to new pathologies that future generations will be left to deal with.

If anything I probably am too homophobic (fear of man) and not enough theophobic. Proverbs 29:25 says “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.”

I see marriage as the natural, organic institution that predates government, that is based upon biological realities, and that produces the next generation. It is the institution that is designed to provide a proactive, protective environment for children to grow up in a loving related family. These are not simply religious reasons but reasons that come to us from natural law. No one is against gay marriages, they are against trying to recognize as marriages something that isn’t. My wife has a step sister who is a lesbian who was married for 20 years and has 2 children from the marriage. The state has three options regarding any activity. Prohibit, permit and promote. Since ‘Lawrence v. Texas’, no state has been preventing genderless marriages. The states simply haven’t accorded them the status of legal recognition. I think what you are displaying in your comment shows that this has to do with forcing people to accept genderless marriage as normal. That seems to go along with the remarks made by Secretary Clinton. It’s not just that I’m against this for the homosexual community. I don’t support this for any other form of family either. I think that they are inherently discriminating against the child’s actual rights.

Our founding fathers passed on to us a nation that they fought and bled for. A nation for which they sacrificed. May I suggest that you refresh your knowledge of the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” They had a clear and deep belief in God and that God was the one who gave rights to man. They pledged “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” and then followed through on what were impossible odds in order to pass on to their posterity the blessings of freedom. We have become enormously prosperous and successful following these foundations that they have laid and now you come along with some with some different foundations. You want to have us dig up the foundations already laid and put in place these new foundations based on different premises. You talk about having religious reasons for rejecting genderless marriage. Maybe you could share with us what your religious principles are and demonstrate for us why our founders beliefs were wrong and the principles they established our system on were wrong. So do you have religious principles do you call them non religious? In either case they are going to come from a philosophy or a belief system which you hold that holds certain things to be true, just not what our founders held. When you change the foundations you will change the result that we get from the system that is in place.

Maybe you are not aware but the leaders of your movement would certainly like to do away with marriage altogether. Take a look at the LGBT manifesto from 2006 called “Beyond Same Sex Marriage.”

Advocates for SS ‘marriage’ make a bad/weak case for their ’cause’ when they cite bigotry practiced by males against females as their rationalization for their support for ‘gay marriage” (actually, this is an impossibility (and an oxymoron) given the natural and unchangeable definition and origins of marriage). Even though the one commenters claims are wholly and generally unsupported by the facts and suffers tremendously from comparing todays accepted standards of equity with those of generations ago, (called ‘presentism’), it is still a dangerous place to venture for SSM proponents since the wrongs of the past in no way are supportive of the wrongs currently being proposed.

What men practiced against women in all societies is an even greater reason for why society should not redefine marriage. Society never defined marriage to begin with- the demands of nature did, and still does. The Astroturf of today, rather than the grassroots of the past borne fro observations and lessons from nature, has removed Man from the necessary influences/lessons of nature, which was designed to inform Man of his origins, his history, his path in life, and his mortality. The ‘grassroots’ social revolutions of today are fabricated in the backrooms and boardrooms of politicians, lawyers and CEOs eager to cash in on the new society, which is in no way beneficial to Man or his necessary and ecologically-derived society or culture.

Our current day western culture is being forced onto a path of death by the progressive state.

Be very careful just how much power you are willing to give the state over our lives. You might be surprised to find yourselves soon at odds with that behemoth/leviathan.

David- if you are going to descend into juvenile baiting, you should take on an issue far less important than children’s’ well-being, and the health of a free society- maybe you should be perusing entertainment or pop culture blogs? Of course we all know that there is no ‘marriage’ in nature- except for Man who epitomizes nature. But, there is monogamy- upon which the very philosophical concept of marriage is based.

And, your point about “our side” not submitting amicus briefs in court to deny non-gays the benefit of raising others biological children (implying a bias against homosexuals)- well, aside from the obvious reason that those entities are not attempting to globally redefine marriage, and thereby impose a redefinition of society in atop-down manner, there is a legal process for determining who should be parenting those children, as well. Naturally, the courts have looked to keep children as close to their biological relatives, whenever possible.

You really don’t have a good, natural argument (one that omits the material aspects of civil marriage) for why marriage should be redefined to include same sex individuals, do you? How about redefining marriage to include more than two individuals- do you support that concept? How about redefining marriage to permit relatives to ‘marry’- what is your position on that proposition? How about interspecies marriage, or marriage between an animate and inanimate object- is it OK, if not, why not?

What is your definition of marriage?

What is your definition of monogamy, as practiced by animals? Why do you suppose monogamy exists?

“Our current day western culture is being forced onto a path of death by the progressive state.”

Yeah, that’s exactly what’s going to happen if you allow the remaining 3% of society to marry the consenting adult of their choice. While you’re at it, don’t forget to blame gays for the drought in California.

“Be very careful just how much power you are willing to give the state over our lives. “

For the past 200+ years “the state” has overseen marriage, and somehow straight people and society have managed to survive. I’m fairly certain that allowing gay couples to also civilly marry won’t create an unending power-grab by the state to control every aspect of our lives. Just a hunch.

I don’t need to defend your inane slippery slope arguments. They have nothing to do with civil marriage for gay citizens — the only remaining group of Americans that cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice.

“How about interspecies marriage, or marriage between an animate and inanimate object…”

So who exactly is descending into juvenile baiting here?

“What is your definition of marriage?”
I’m more interested in what your definition of marriage is. I’d be curious to hear you explain how marriage is all about repopulating the species, while at the same time allowing 93-year old Betty White to get married whenever she wants. Or why the state couldn’t care less that infertile couples get married, or straight couples (like a number of friends of mine) that don’t have (and don’t want) any children. Are these non-procreative couples actually “married”? According to you, probably not. According to the state/government, most definitely. I’d love for you to defend the second-adulterous marriage of Newt Gingrich; and explain why that pile of human garbage should have the right to get married a fourth time if he wants… simply because he’s heterosexual. Since he hasn’t cranked out any children with his wife “du jour”, at what point can we demand that the state nullify his non-procreative union? How exactly does his non-procreative marriage differ from a same-sex union? Some same-sex couples are raising children. Newt isn’t. Marriage supposedly exists to benefit children. Why is the state allowing childless Newt to be married, but not the same-sex couples that are actually raising children?

So if your argument was that humans are just like (supposedly monogamous) animals in nature, I think you epically failed. If anything, it makes a compelling argument that men should spread their seed around as much as possible to make sure that our species doesn’t die off. — With only 7 billion people on the planet, who knows how much longer we’ll have — especially if gay people can marry each other. Because… um… Benghazi!

David- the progressive state is comprised of far more that your ~3& of the population. But, because your 3% of the population is blazing a brand new trail straight through the spine of the nucleus of society -the family, you are significantly contributing to it’s demise.

I will easily blame progressive policies for the drought in California. What percentage of gays support progressive policies in Cali, for which we can then blame them for elevating the health of a fish over humans?

Your snark, as well as your lack of facts, weakens your case for requiring society to permit ‘gay marriage’ without introducing a threat to a free society. You see, it is the process that the gay lobby is using to force their wants on the rest of society that poses the threat to society. The fact is that we don’t know what the outcome will be on society if SSM is supported by the state. But, we do know that if a minority community can wield such sweeping a mandate via judicial fiat, then, the possibilities for dissembling our democracy are endless. For just one second of your life think about the ramifications of your selfish wants on someone else- like society, at large. If granting your small community this want in a way that sets a precedent designed to bypass the democratic process, how does that strengthen our society, or our freedoms?

Gay Americans are not the only group that cannot marry the person of their choice- many minority communities cannot marry the person of their choice, such as, polyamorists, pederasts, pedophiles and proponents of incest (as well as measurable subcultures that promote bestiality and ‘marriage’ to an inanimate object), where do you draw the line- and, if you do, are you a ‘bigot”?. If you gain your want by both changing the definition of marriage and bypassing the political and legal systems designed to support the will of the people, you have paved the way for the proponents of other purveyors of selfishness to demand the same “rights”. Only advocates of SSM, currently, are ensuring this road to total collapse of western civilization is paved for the others.

My definition of marriage is the commitment of a lifelong, monogamous bond between a man and a woman. This definition evolved out of the reality that when a male and female bond, offspring are more likely than not, to be a product of that bonding. Society’s interest has not been for the male or female of the bond (although, this bond benefits all), but for the benefit of the offspring, which represents the health of the species, and society. Society didn’t come along and say “lets create this marriage thing for men and women alone and see what happens”. No, the man-woman thing happened straight out of the ooze, and it was determined by society that supporting a structure that encourages the lifelong commitment of those two life-creating beings to ensure the health of the offspring, the family, and society, overall, was in everyone’s interest- even homosexuals- who, last time I checked, were and still are born via that same process, and structure. Because not all marriages between male and female produce children, it is no more logical to change the definition of this critical structure than it would be to change the definition of a hospital because some patients don’t get well. Going to a hospital is where you go to hopefully get well; going into a marriage is where you go hopefully to get children- but, as we know, it doesn’t always happen. What your lobby proposes is to change the definition of the hospital so that it’s sole function is not to heal people, but, now it is also supposed to educate you. No, that is what we have schools, for- right? Putting homosexuals into marriage is as ridiculous as sending your kids to a hospital for their education. There is nothing in the homosexual existence that cries out for a lifelong commitment to monogamy in order to ensure the fitness of the progeny of that union, and further to ensure the health of current and future generations of that species.

I don’t care about Betty White or Newt Gingrich- they are not redefining marriage, or misusing the political-legal system in a way that threatens our culture or freedoms. I am not interested in judging anyone’s personal behavior, including homosexuals, I am only interested in preserving our western culture/civilization.

Monogamy is the naturally evolved behavior or practice that has been determined by Man to be the best structure in which to ensure the survival of the species. The survival of the species includes individuals (but, especially their bond to each other), as well as any offspring (family), as well as the species community and population (society). No matter how many different species you cite that practice the full-spectrum of monogamous bonding, or that practice the multitudes of other pair-bonding behaviors, the fact remains that nature has long ago determined that it is the lifelong monogamous bonding of male and female that ensures the fitness of Man. We call that Marriage. You want to redefine it.

Your last paragraph comments are so emotionally charged and illogical (‘hand-in-hand’, as they say), it is hard to respond, rationally. Yet, it does reveal the ideology, if not the facts, that drives your argument. You managed to roll up in just a few irrational statements, rather neatly, that the progressives penchant for unbridled male sexual aggression, reducing world population (usually best done by promoting surrogacy while supporting abortion, I suppose?), and “Benghazi” (or, was that just a sneeze?) are all somehow linked up, at least in the progressive mind, with the SSM debate.

“Not marriage, or the preserving the “definition” of marriage, or any of that nonsense that you people made up…”

This latest from a SSM advocate tells us all we need to know about the gay lobby’s rationale, and , it isn’t much of one.

You see, definitions of words are RELATIVE- they only mean something when that meaning supports your very own definition- and socio-politico cause. We may as well throw away our dictionaries- words no longer have any meaning; well, except for words like bigot, hater, homophobe, Christian, Conservative – they have very strong meanings to the gay lobby. Actually, to the gay lobby they all mean exactly the same thing.

So, one would have to ask; if Marriage has no meaning, why is it the gay lobby is fighting tooth and nail to get into it? It must ‘mean’ something to them?

When did I say marriage had no meaning? I was simply trivializing your constant insistence that it’s wrong to “redefine marriage.” We redefined marriage in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case and it was an undeniably positive change. I’m not saying same sex marriage wouldn’t be a bigger shift, I’m saying that “redefining” marriage is what should be done if marriage doesn’t accurately reflect the egalitarian aspects of law that we live under and hold as precious. And currently it does not so most of the country would like for the marital laws to accurately reflect the wishes of the country.

But go on, keep acting like I’m getting paid by Glaad for having an opinion.

Marriage did not have to redefined in response to the Loving v. Virginia decision (which has its very own set of issues) since neither the legal or religious historic definitions of marriage ever restricted marriage between ‘races’. The ‘races” have been intermarrying forever, not so the sexes.

Of course the SSM advocates are seeking to redefine marriage- hence, the need for the pending SCOTUS decision.

Marriage has always meant a monogamous bond between a male and a female, of any race, in the Judeo-Christian west. Marriage has never meant such a bond between same sex individuals.

If you had a magic SCOTUS pen, how would the SSM advocates here at ATB like to write the decision to redefine marriage? It’s a very fair question. The opposition has been very clear about their objections- none of which have anything to do with bigotry or hatred of anybody.

And, after you have penned your redefinition of marriage to include same sex persons, please explain how you haven’t opened the flood gates to others similarly disposed to redefine marriage to support the myriad of relationships they practice.

Then, tell us again, how you have not weakened the very unique western cultural institution of marriage as we have known it for millennia.

Before Loving v. Virginia, we defined marriage as between two people of the same race. It doesn’t matter how it was “defined for millenia since the dawn of time,” ALL THAT MATTERS is how we define it in this country. And before 1967 it was defined one way, and after 1967 it was defined another way. You can refuse to call that a “redefinition” all you wish, but we redefined the term and allowed access to members of our society who previously were rejected. That’s exactly what is happening today.

Marriage has always been monogamous? What are you smoking? Ever hear of the Mormons? How about cracking your Bible (Judeo-Christian tradition lol, there’s no such thing, the Jews had very little to do with our tradition, that term is so annoying) and counting the polygamous and polyamorous marriages. You’ll find a lot. So don’t tell me we didn’t redefine marriage away from biblical principles by making it monogamous. Nothing in the Bible says a marriage has to be monogamous and there are plenty of Biblical examples of non-monogamous marriages that faced no consequence or retribution.

I never said you were hateful or bigoted, please stop putting words in my mouth. I can “keep the flood gates closed” by noting that non-related pairs of consenting adults are the basis of social contracts and are the exact relationships we should be fostering. Under the equal protection clause, non-related consensual adult couples should not be restricted due to gender or sexual orientation from being recognized in marriage. That would be my argument and I think it’s a pretty solid one and it certainly wouldn’t “open the floodgates,” what a preposterous notion that is so commonly utilized by your side.

Marriage is not unique to the West, nor is it unique to your faith, and the places that have gay marriage seem to be doing just fine. We’ve had gay marriage for a decade now in this country and if your notion that “the unique western cultural institution of marriage” has been destroyed were actually true then surely we would see some negative consequences of recognizing gay marriage. We do not.

I don’t usually step into other conversations, but there’s a couple of points about your respond I wished to address, along with a question.

I do agree that you have a point. Marriage hasn’t always been monogamous, however the Bible, specifically the New Testament, does endorse monogamy over polygamy. Frankly, while the OT has plenty of examples of polygamy, most of them are rife with familial conflict that is absent monogamous cases.

Furthermore, Loving v. Virginia didn’t redefine marriage so much as reset it back to the old, more Christian standard. One of the rationales of Loving was that the old laws were unfairly focused on white racial purity, thus violating the ‘seperate but equal’ justifications used earlier.

Furthermore, there is documentation that same-sex marriage has a negative impact on society. I agree that the sky is not falling, but it places another stressor on a society. Too much stress and society breaks. (Though I would point to Islam being a far larger stressor than SSM.)

As I close, I have two questions. One, why do you add ‘non-related’ as one of your conditions to marriage?

Two, why would you argue Judaism hasn’t had any influence on our tradition?

My argument to deny SSM advocates participation in the historical institution of marriage is grounded in natural law, not religion. And, you had better do another review of both biblical and historical marriage definitions and actual application of this institution by civilized societies (the one we’re most concerned about being Western Culture which is based upon Judeo-Christian theology and philosophy)- because you are wrong that they ever permitted or promoted anything but marriage between a man and a woman. Interracial marriage has been practiced throughout human history, including in all nations comprising western culture (again- which is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics and morality).

You are flat-out wrong about your unique interpretations of the bible’s treatment of marriage- but, I will leave that exegesis to others more qualified than me here at ATB.

You did a very cute dance all around the direct question, while you tossed that salad that included misquotes, misunderstandings and unfounded extrapolations of my statements (which stand as I stated them, not, as you rephrased or misquoted them)- how does your redefinition of marriage from one man and one woman (of any race, as has been the case for millennia, except for a very brief time on some parts of some nation/states) exclude others from using your lobby’s redefinition to have the state permit, and all society support, all the other forms of relationships they practice?

Anyway, I don’t care what the historical institution of marriage is “grounded in,” as this is about federal and state recognition of homosexual benefits and protections, nothing more. It’s not about “the definition of marriage” or the institution or any of that nonsense, that’s simply stuff we can argue about, but the legal arguments all hinge on equal protection and federal recognition of benefits and protections. Once you start swaying from those issues I stop taking you seriously, and most constitutional law experts would agree with that.

Interracial marriage wasn’t practiced in this country until 1967. That’s all that matters since this is an American decision for Americans. I don’t care what “every other civilization has done since the dawn of time”, so take that nonsense elsewhere, it’s irrelevant.

If I’m wrong then show me. Polygamous marriage is found throughout the Bible and nowhere is it spoken against or referred to as a sin or seen as wrong in any way, shape or form.

Others are free to use the gay lobby’s tactics all they want, but it took gays nearly 50 years to be accepted in society to the point where most people agree they should get marital benefits. If Incestuous couples want that protection then they are free to use those tactics but they have a long road ahead of them and considering incest and polygamy and pedophilia all have far more obvious negative consequences (polygamy being inherently sexist in how it is practiced in the majority of the world) so I think there chances aren’t very good.

So before Loving v. Virginia a Japanese person couldn’t marry a Croation, an American Indian couldn’t marry a Pole? No, of course not. There was one group that was discriminated against because of their ‘race’. That law was put in place back in our slave past and didn’t reflect what the institution has been historically. It was Mormon practices that brought in laws outlawing polygamy. Did you know that the Republican party was started to fight against the twin evils of slavery and polygamy?

I’m glad to see that you are interested in what the Bible says. Take a look at Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Notice that first this is based on the created order. God created man and woman not man and two or three or more women. Secondly Jesus says “the two shall become one flesh, not the 3 or 4 or whatever number.”

Are there examples of polygamous marriages in the Bible? Yes. Does this mean that God endorses these? Not at all. It is called narrative rather than didactic literature. Otherwise we would have to understand that simply because the Bible mentions people doing things, like murder or adultery, that it is actually endorsing these things.

As to equal protection as we have discussed before everyone has this already because they have the same rights under law. The problem is they don’t want to use the rights they have. They want to invent some substitute and claim that for a right. Maybe you would you explain how it is with your understanding of the equal protection clause, that the states didn’t immediately begin repealing their sodomy laws? Doesn’t that clause apply to individuals, not couples or groups anyway?

You are right that marriage isn’t unique to the West. Every culture throughout history has had some institution that we would recognize as marriage. That is because marriage fulfills a specific function. It has an essential public purpose. It attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Now that is an essential purpose in the following sense that if you didn’t need that purpose then I claim that you wouldn’t need the institution of marriage at all. It is because we are the type of creatures that reproduce sexually, one man, one woman, is what it takes to reproduce and we have young that are dependent for a long time, because we are that kind of creature that we need this kind of institution that attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. And many of the features of marriage flow from this understanding of its essential public purpose. Now I want to contrast the public purposes with its private purpose. Now I want to contrast the public purposes with private purposes. The idea that you attach children to their mothers and fathers is an intrinsically public purpose because what it means is that Mr and Mrs Wilson are the parents of these children and no one else is. No one else can show up and say, “I hung around long enough, I was the baby sitter for 8 hours a day, seven days a week. The baby calls me Mommie so I count as the mommie, no one else counts. And so their is an intrinsically public aspect to this purpose which that who counts as a parent and no one else does. Its also to be contrasted with the whole variety of private purposes that one might have for getting married. There are all kinds of private reasons people get married. You might get married because you want to move out of your parents home. You might think its an economically good deal. You might think you are going to get health insurance. There are all kinds of private reasons that you might want to get married, but all of those reasons taken together don’t add up to a public reason to have the institution of marriage in the first place.

Should we see the sky falling now? No. Is that what we saw happen the day after the change to no fault divorce? No. Has no fault divorce been an unmitigated disaster. Yes. It hasn’t just affected the little 5% that were supposed to be helped by it but our whole society. Everyone has been affected by it but it takes a generation or more before the full consequences of that decision can be seen.

If you honestly believe that same sex marriage will have the same effect on marriage as no-fault divorce then you are an ideologue who does not see this issue clearly. There has been no data in the more than 20 years now that same sex-marriage has been legal somewhere on the globe to show any reduction in marriage rates or increase in divorce rates in areas with same-sex marriage. Every time you or your anti-gay friends want to use the “we need to protect opposite-sex marriage” argument, I simply roll my eyes because you have not shown that it is in danger in any way other than by your own insistence.

Now let’s move on to public reasons why gay relationships should be recognized: well for all the same damn reasons that opposite-sex relationships should be recognized. I know gays can’t naturally have children, but again, and I know you’ve heard this before: that’s not the entire point of marital rights and benefits, and as such we do not (and should not) restrict these benefits to people who can procreate. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment, same sex couples deserve legal protections for their unions just as opposite-sex couples do, they deserve the ability to file joint-tax returns, they deserve the legal ability to care for and see their loved ones in hospital care, they deserve to be recognized with all the same benefits and privileges that opposite-sex couples receive because they are tax-paying citizens just like any others.

If you honestly believe the only thing keeping opposite-sex relationships viable is special government intervention and recognition then you obviously have less faith in straight people than I do.

Yes the same argument was used then that you are using now. How will this affect your marriage since only a very small group of people want to use this ‘right’. If you were to think of marriage as a ship it took several torpedo hits below the water line with No Fault Divorce. Now you are wanting to apply a few more torpedo hits with genderless marriage. Again you are missing the point that marriage is primarily about the children. They are the ones that need the protective aspects that marriage provides. The adults can go to court or do other things to protect their rights but that obviously isn’t go to happen for the children. It is not primarily about any benefits that the couple receives either. You can roll your eyes all day long and you but it doesn’t change those facts. The government flows from the family not the family from the government. The family preexists all governments. This is an attack on my marriage because it changes the relationship that I have with my children in the eyes of the state. It has now become the institution that decides where children belong rather than what has been the situation in the past where it simply recognizes biological parents.

As to your argument about equal protection I think you mean the 14th Amendment. Under the 14th Amendment everyone does have the same rights individually. What you are showing is that you don’t want those rights. You want to change them to be something else. Again where do rights come from? You clearly believe that there are rights. So how about it.

Lets do a simple exercise here, using ZetaZeds “logic” in support of SSM, with one edit, I replace same sex with other unnatural ‘marriage’ proposals (…and totally, mercifully, ignoring the usual ‘you’re just antigay’ nonsense…):

“Now let’s move on to public reasons why POLYGAMOUS/POLYANDROUS/POLYMORPHOUS relationships should be recognized: well for all the same damn reasons that opposite-sex relationships should be recognized. I know BESTIALISTS can’t naturally have children, but again, and I know you’ve heard this before: that’s not the entire point of marital rights and benefits, and as such we do not (and should not) restrict these benefits to people who can procreate. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment, INCESTUOUS couples deserve legal protections for their unions just as opposite-sex couples do, they deserve the ability to file joint-tax returns, they deserve the legal ability to care for and see their loved ones in hospital care, they deserve to be recognized with all the same benefits and privileges that opposite-sex couples receive because they are tax-paying citizens just like any others.”

How’s this working for us all, now?

Of course, we will have to ignore the fact that all those ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ (which are obtainable outside of the natural institution of marriage) cited as the only reason SSM advocates should be both financially and morally supported by the state and society is because they just ‘want’ it, a rationalization that is still void of any demonstrable benefit to society or the family (i.e. it’s the same old selfish argument).

This is just pathetic now. The 13th Amendment provides for “similarly situated” individuals or couples to not be denied rights or benefits based on sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, etc. If you can’t understand how incest or polygamy could make a couple not similarly situated then you don’t understand the law or the clause. Marriage requires consent, bestiality by its very nature has none.

So tell me again Jae, how SSM supporters “don’t have any logical arguments” and argue “based totally off emotion” when here you are rewriting my post and deliberately cheapening my argument. You are driven by emotion, specifically anti-gay animus, since you can’t see any difference between a gay relationship and one between a dog-f*cker and his dog apparently.

Now are all of those only obtainable through marriage? No, but in order to cover all of these (mostly non-procreative) benefits, rights and protections, gay couples would have to file endless briefs and endless requests, and likely be denied to many of these if they simply try to file for business or legal partnerships.

Also, maybe if you and your anti-gay marriage supporters didn’t reject civil unions at every turn in this debate, then perhaps we could have settled on civil unions as a reasonable answer. But no, you’re even against those. Well sorry, but if you’re not willing to compromise then neither am I

13th Amendment was for the abolition of slavery. I think you are thinking of the 14th Amendment. Would you care to share with us the text in the 14th Amendment that you are referring to? This brings up the question again that you studiously have been avoiding. Where do rights come from? How about you or David take a shot at that and let’s see how it lines up with what our founders believed was the basis of rights and the inheritance that we have today that you so casually seem to want to throw away. The privileges that go along with marriage are the cart after the horse. None of those would be there without the institution first.

Jae’s point is that they are all deviations from the natural institution of marriage. As to David’s comment about nature not having marriage, that is what we call civilization. ‘Homosexuality’ in nature doesn’t dictate what we aught to do any more than wild animals in nature killing one another doesn’t mean that we should go out and kill one another.

Here you go Sudan, that’s the part you and your side don’t seem to understand. Read up on it for awhile.

Our founders believe that the constitution is our basis of rights. And the equal protection clause of our constitution would say that similarly-situated couples (i.e. two unrelated people cohabitating and raising a family) should not be restricted based on sexuality or gender from the same protections or benefits. And your side has not and cannot refute that, period. It’s why eveyr anti-gay marriage ban has failed in federal court and will fail at SCOTUS.

When the text of the declaration says “… endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights … that governments are instituted to protect”, help me understand that in such a way that would say that rights come from the constitution or some other man made document and not the plain reading of the text which indicates that they come from God.

It is the 14th Amendment that you are thinking of right? Please quote the text of that amendment that applies to the issue. You know I use Wikipedia for a lot of things but they aren’t the original text although they usually have the text in their article. Please quote the relevant text that you think applies from the amendment.

We all reply where the site permits us to reply- or, haven’t you noticed that?

It appears as though you have all the answers you need from those of us here at ATB willing to civilly and logically (unemotionally) engage in this debate. Aside from the Bigot herself, you have many knowledgeable commenters here giving you their religious supernatural (with properly referenced and interpreted biblical references) rationale and other commenters relying on the material-natural law via the expression of the simple, pure sciences of biology, chemistry and physics to support their positions. The opponents of SSM (aka defenders of natural marriage) have exhausted the rationale behind their position.

SSM advocates have not provided any rationale for why our society should deconstruct the underpinnings of our civilized society- other than the “I want” defense. SSM advocates are incapable of providing any rationale for how permitting state-condoned and supported SSM will benefit all of society, which is why resorting to the pure emotionality of ideology, and using the SCOTUS to hammer their selfish ‘wants’ into place, is their only option.

Nothing ever gained by being forced in a top-down fashion is ever sustaining. The will of man, as expressed through his citizenship in a free society in our case, will eventually right these wrongs. Unfortunately, meanwhile, the radical left wing of the gay lobby has moved our once free society ever closer to an authoritarian regime than ever before in our nations history. And, for that, they will need to answer to both the transcendental and the material.

Here is a good exercise for the egalitarian purists at ATB: if equality is your only basis for demanding to redefine marriage, let’s see how that works out across the board – in the real world:

1. Rescinding of all/any laws providing special status to minority classes since they ensure an inequality status to non-minority groups. Those laws include any that provide special status based upon race, gender or sexuality.
2. Laws created to ensure equal distribution of wealth. It is unfair that there is income inequality, therefore, we will create and enforce laws to redistribute (confiscate) wealth from wealthier individual to less wealthy individuals until such time there is pure equality of income among all peoples. [Do you want to restrict this to the US, or shall we go universal?]
3. Laws created to ensure equality of talent. It is unfair that there is talent inequality, therefore, we will create laws that limit the expression of talent in some individuals, while we redefine talent to compensate for the lack of talent in less talented or talentless individuals.
4. Laws created to ensure equality of beauty among peoples. It is unfair that there is an unfair distribution of beauty among peoples, therefore, we will create laws that celebrate, and reward, the less beautiful, and punish the more beautiful. Beauty will be redefined, and/or redistributed among the less beautiful population, as possible.
5. Laws created to ensure equality of families with children. If one family has determined it unfair that another family has better (more beautiful or talented) or otherwise more desirable children, we will create laws that redistribute high value children fairly among families.
6. Laws created to ensure equality of intelligence. It is unfair that some persons have low IQs, or otherwise measured intelligence, therefore, we will create a law that ensures higher IQ persons reduce or limit their intelligence so as not to unfairly burden low intellect persons. IQ will be redefined, and/or redistributed among the population, as possible. to ensure fairness and equality.
7. Laws created to ensure equality of abode. It is unfair (unequal) that some persons live in bigger or nicer homes and/or neighborhoods (incl. states, nations), and environments (weather, safety, serenity, etc.) than others. Laws will be created to redistribute persons to equal abodes in order to ensure equality, accordingly.

I am sure (positive) I’ve missed many other ‘things’ in life, ‘acquired’ either genetically/biologically or environmentally, that we could add to this list.

Someone, anyone, please enlighten me – how is this insanity (in opposition to observed truth, and nature) any different than what the radical SSM lobby and other insane leftist ideologues advocate?

-See you claim many times now Jae to be unemotional and logical but then oyu go and use terminology like this. We are not advocating to deconstruct anything. Same sex marriage will do absolutely nothing to opposite-sex marriage, and straight people will never lose their incentives for having children just because those incentives are also passed onto loving same-sex relationships as well. This is emotion-driven nonsense, it has no basis in logical fact. We have enough data from countries and states with legal gya marriage that prove, unequivocally, that opposite-sex relaitonships, parenting and unions are not adversely affected. Period.

Technically are we in favor of “rewriting” marriage? Yes. But as I said before, marriage has been rewritten many times in this country, in 1899 to keep the polygamists out, in 1967 to let the interracial couples in, etc. and it never once caused people to stop having sex and raising families. There is absolutely nothing to support the notion that allowing gays to marry would have nay negative effect on “the underpinnings of our civilized society.” And why can’t gay people and gay unions be included in those underpinnings? They are substantial members of our community now in case you missed out on the last 50 years in some Bomb shelter.

I’ll tell you how it will benefit society: it will give gay parents protections they previously did not have. Hundreds of thousands of children in the US are raised in same sex households and if we don’t recognize those families with marital rights then they’re the ones left out in the cold. I thought you Conservatives were supposed to be pro-family?

But go on, keep ranting and raving about SCOTUS (never mind the fact that your side has yet to find a cogent argument for keeping marriage discriminated by gender and sexuality) or the “radical left wing” and how they’re destroying society. I’m sure you’ll get plenty of support on places like ATB

First, I have never been opposed to civil unions, so, you may eliminate me from your ‘antigay/bigoted/hater’ hit-list. I wont speak for other SSM opponents, but, I support all benefits and privileges due to SS civil unions, but, draw my own ethical-moral line at including same sex or anything that isn’t One Man and One Woman for Marriage (for all reasons based in natural law, as previously stated).

Second, my argument is clearly not driven by emotion, but, is driven by the reality (logic) that once SSM advocates get their SCOTUS ‘win’, all the other ‘relationship’ advocates will have precedent upon which to stand to further redefine marriage to suit their own personal needs- with no consideration of adverse effects on society. And why not? If we can redefine natural marriage to accommodate same sex unions, why not open it up for any union, between multiples of individuals, or between people and anything with which they can form a relationship/bond, however unusual, temporary or useless to society- who’s to judge- you?
Is there anything about your argument in support of SSM that isn’t based in benefits to you (selfish)? Is there anything in your argument that is capable of formulating a coherent case (other than “it just needs to be fair”) that demonstrates a clear benefit to our society- even remotely altruistic?

Third, your last statement is ever-so revealing of the radical gay lobby’s true intentions; which is to destroy natural marriage (maybe not you, but, there is more than enough documentation to support this very real anarchist activism vein in the SSM lobby). And, it isn’t anti-anything to acknowledge the fact that there are alliances that have formed to undermine western civilization- and, what better place to start then at it’s core, the family unit. Your last paragraph, which documents the underlying punitive nature of your mission, should send a chill up the spine of all champions of freedom. You will destroy marriage, and/or any other civilizing institution, ‘by any means necessary’, to your ends/gains.

“If we can redefine natural marriage to accommodate same sex unions, why not open it up for any union, between multiples of individuals, or between people and anything with which they can form a relationship/bond, however unusual, temporary or useless to society- who’s to judge- you?”

–Nope, the courts get to judge, and they get to judge what “similarly-situated” means in terms of the 13th Amendment and Equal Protection Clauses. And they agree with me, that two non-related individuals cohabitating and raising families are “similar” enough to fall under the same protections. And your side keeps losing in those courts. Tough break, sorry.

I agree that it may give polygamists precedent, but that is certainly not any reason for not recognizing gay marriage. Surely you understand that right? That issues have to be weighed on their own merits, not on how they will be “seized upon” by other groups. You cannot disallow gay marriage just because it may give polygamists another quiver in their pouch.

“Is there anything about your argument in support of SSM that isn’t based in benefits to you (selfish)? ”
— None of my arguments have been based in benefits to me, my arguments have been based solely in equal recognition under federal law for homosexuals and for the removal of gender and sexuality discrimination from marriage. The “clear benefit for society” comes by allowing gay couples legal protections, tax benefits and other basic rights (keep in mind the SCOTUS ruled marriage is a civil right 14 different times) and by allowing the children of gay couples those same protections. That is a CLEAR SOCIETAL BENEFIT.

No serious gay activists wish to “destroy traditional marriage” and I don’t care how many times you copy-paste that same Masha Gellen quote that finds it’s way to every Conservative news site. Yes, there are rabid gay activists, and yes they should be ignored. Your insistence that gays wish to destroy marriage is unfounded and ridiculous and you should stop listening ot the irrational outliers and look at what the movement as a whole is doing.

Like it or not, gays are an important part of Western society and we should treat them as such by including them in the moral underpinnings of society. You are a reactionary and a paranoid one at that if you honestly believe gays and gay activists are seeking to destroy traditional society by simply having their unions recognized by federal law.

The slippery slope is a LOGICAL FALLACY it is very dangerous for you to utilize it as your entire philosophy

Yes it absolutely is taking basic human rights away from a child. It is a violation. Think about it, who are you to say what a child needs or has a right to? Did you give birth to the child? If it is not your child–your flesh and blood you have no right–every child has a mother and a father.

No adult on the face of the earth has the right to other peoples children or to their wombs. These children are being used in the making of the synthetic families–. Love, emotional stability are de facto not possible when the kids are being used.

It is like talking about the good slave owner–not possible because owning people is wrong.

If this were about basic human rights then you’re focusing on one of the smallest percentages of causes for the loss of mothers/fathers. You should be going after no fault divorce. You should be going after the fact that single parents are not only allowed to adopt but make up 33% of all adoptions in the US. But you never hear Katy or fat Bobby Lopez even mention that fact, they seem to have absolutely no problem with it, but instead they devote their time to restricting loving couples from marital/adoption rights, then hide behind the children to mask their discrimination.

“If” . . . the lead in to your faulty conclusion. The right of men to use impoverished women as breed animals and forcibly impregnate them, have them confined in “compounds” and then have their child taken away. Is a right?

Okay then. So much for pretending to care about human rights or women’s or children’s.

No one is hiding behind anything. Right out here–publishing, speaking, writing on the subject, being interviewed–nobody is hiding. LGBT have tried us into hiding with threats against us and our families–(yes love makes a family folk are so family centered they threaten peoples children).

Let’s point the holes in the rhetoric.
1. Divorce does not eliminate a mother or a father it dissolves a marriage.

2. Single mothers do not wipe the father off the face of the earth they are not married to them.

Are you following this?

Divorce is bad for kids and so are single parents homes.

But it is nothing compared to what LGBT is doing–not even close. Single people should not be allowed to adopt unless they are biological related or the parents were killed and left some directive that names a single person as the guardian in the case of their death.

Now that you’re done telling people what to so it serves you (because isn’t that what the world is about) and hit some of the “talking point” it was a weak diversion and a ham fisted ad hominem.

Again I repeat LGBT is the only group in history (not counting slave owners) to use women as breeders and sell children–and in it what Owerllian vision do you image that is love or family? Talk about hiding things. I can think of few things more monstrous. Need I say or explain more?

LGBT is a predatory movement that uses women and children and damages all women and all children by commercial for profit commodification . This is not a complicated or nuanced. It is a massive human rights violation. As people become increasingly aware people I do not see them think it is all hunky dory. It may a hard concept to grasp but children have basic human rights and LGBT is firmly and openly against children having any human rights and being anything more than an owned possession so adults can role “real grown up” Having grown up in the gay community the irony is not lost on me. Sorry you do not believe in basic human rights.

Surrogacy, the practice you are speaking against, wherein 3rd-world women are used as baby farms for the wealthy, is almost entirely a practice conducted by heterosexuals. You again, time and time again, continue to purposely conflate the issue of surrogacy with the issue of homosexual marriage/adoption. They are not one in the same.

I am against third-world surrogacy but I don’t think it is inherently an amoral or dangerous process. Surrogacy needs oversight, and the problems in surrogacy can be effectively remedied through an international body that overlooks surrogacy agreements. Until that happens, you will have baby farms in India and it is not the fault of gays but instead the fault of 20-something career women who don’t want stretch marks or to take 9 months off from their job. That is a far more common customer than homosexuals.

Threats? From the LGBT crowd? What threats? You’re speaking nonsense.

You are wholly disingenuous and I have no problem calling you a bigot, you’ve proven yourself to be one. Gay adoption is in no way different from straight. If gay adoptive parents “rip children from their biological parents” then so do straight ones, and at a far higher rate. Yet you only speak against the gays. Why is that? Can’t be due to your inherent anti-gay bigotry can it?

LGBT are not the group using women as breeders you dense twat. Look at any statistics of surrogate adoption anywhere: straights make up 95-99% of this market. Your arguments against gay adoption and against gay surrogacy fall flat as you cannot logically and rationally show any difference between the gay community using these services and the straight.

LGBT is not a predatory movement, it is a civil rights movement and idiots like you are thankfully dying off every single day. You’ll be just as historically relevant as the people who marched against interracial marriage throughout the South in 1967. People already are aware (other than you apparently) and they disagree wholly and entirely with your baseless anti-gay positions.

The SSM issue is not the same as the civil right issues of the 60s (with two Acts of Congress, our democratically-elected representatives being enacted; Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965).

The basic problem of your faulty premise is that marriage, as a natural institution, never should have prohibited interracial (a distinction unavailable in nature) marriage. Since marriage, as defined for millennia, is the monogamous bonding/binding of two opposite sex individuals for the purpose of procreation to ensure the fitness of the species – even though the legal process used for determining this ‘racial’ truth was as wrong as any top-down mandate that never should have been before SCOTUS, but, was, and still is, an ethical or moral issue as flawed (and still divisive) as the Roe v Wade decision. At least the Loving v Virginia decision was grounded in a natural truth- a fact of biology. Nature provides no such barrier to the ‘races’ as it does to same sex procreation, and all that naturally, inherently comes with being parents.

Pointing to anthropogenic (man-made) wrongs of the past is a poor defense of your proposal now. Just remind yourself of the “Jim Crow” decision every time you get the urge to fall back on bad legal precedent.

And, also remind yourselves that homosexuality is not an obligate or life sustaining requirement of/for life, such as is eating, drinking, sleeping. All sex is behavior that is optional on the purely selfish level, but, mandatory for the sustenance of the species, and that species’ population (or community and society, if you prefer).

Nobody is saying that interracial marriage and gay marriage are exactly the same issue, but you are being completely disingenuous to claim they are so separate that gay activists cannot use it as a proper comparison. While it is true that interracial marriages had been seen before 1967 in other cultures, the point is that in 1967 70% of Americans did not support interracial marriage. So the supporters of interracial marriage took to the courts for their proper recourse and they won because the courts could not find any legal argument of substance to rule that marriage should be restricted to people of the same race. In modern times, gay marriage supporters were rejected by the rejection of the majority in 2004 and 2006 (when these bans were passed) so they took to the courtroom for their recourse and so far no judge has come up with any legal argument of substance to restrict marriage rights to opposite sex couples. This has nothing to do with “how marriage has been defined by all cultures since the dawn of time” as you anti-gay marriage people claim. It’s about one thing: how our government should recognize the rights and benefits of marriage and how those rights should be disseminated. This isn’t about “institutions” or “tradition” but instead about equal accommodation, just like Loving v. Virginia.

I would also like to point out that gay marriage was prevalent in Greece and Rome, with Roman emperors having gay marriages like Nero and Pythagoras or the stories of the Spartans, whose warriors were comprised of solely homosexual pairs. So it’s not quite true that homosexual marriage was never recognized before.

I completely agree with you that No Fault Divorce has been an unmitigated disaster for our society, especially for our children. We were told, “How is this couple down divorcing going to affect your marriage?” Well now we know because it has affected all our lives. JK Chesterton said over a 100 years ago that “Frivolous divorce will lead to frivolous marriage.” This leads to low commitment marriages which leads to suffering for many children. Millions of children have grown up without one of their parents. Millions of mothers have raised children all by themselves and millions of fathers have been exiled from their families. The state comes in on the side of the person least committed to the relationship and in so doing acts against the interest of children and in favor of breaking up the family. The whole focus of the institution was changed from being one that protects children to the desires of the adults.

Now you mentioned human rights. Do you agree with our founders that rights come from God and that governments are established to protect those rights and that this is the foundation of our government? I don’t know of anybody interested in restricting loving couples from marriage although there used to be a group in the south that did restrict marriage between blacks and non-blacks. I think this hinges on “Do we define our own rights or are the God given?”

No, “love and mentally and emotionally stabilization” is not all you need. Those things are important, even critical, but they do not stand alone. The best mother in the world can only be 100% mother and the best father in the world can only be 100% father. If you have two fantastic mothers, you still have 0% father. If you have two fantastic fathers, you still have 0% father. Human beings are designed to know their biological parents and to live with them in male-female complimentarity.

No, “gay marriage’ was not prevalent in ancient Greece, although pederasty was, and ancient Rome was a cesspool of both hetero and homo debauchery. Both republics also practiced other vicious unnatural acts against humanity that no one is interested in adopting as our nations model for civilization today.

There is no comparison between ‘interracial” marriage and SSM since no barrier exists in nature to support such a barrier to marriage between races, and you are being disingenuous to continue to make such an apples and oranges comparison- no one had to change the ancient western definition of marriage to correctly permit marriage between the so-called ‘races’.

If you want to make a fair comparison, why not try answering the question that no SSM advocate seems capable of answering: if western civilization changes the definition of marriage from one male and one female to one person to another person, why can’t it be changed by advocates for proponents of incest, polygamy, polyandry and so on (the possibilities are endless)?

But, you may be right about one thing- your opponents objections are not about sustaining traditions or institutions that are not supported by nature or that are not supportive of a fit society; their objections are clearly about preserving natural marriage so that it continues to mirror nature- not offend it, and about preserving democracy and our republic by forcing all members of our society to use the appropriate tools (local, state and federal legislatures- representative government) for enacting and enforcing laws.

Well, actually, it is a fallacy to claim that my argument has been based on any slippery slope. My argument has been based in biology, with the ‘slippery slope to destroying marriage upon which western civilization has been based for over 2,000 years’, as only one adverse effect on us, individually, and on society, overall.

My argument against SSM, which has been well-documented here, is based in the reality that the monogamous bonding of opposite sex individuals is the optimal system under which offspring should be produced (naturally) and reared. Humans have evolved/adapted into this successful monogamous model – we call it Marriage. There should be no movement, social or otherwise, but, especially one that is forced upon us, that is directed against nature. If your lobby was doing so well and had the support of the population, why the need to short-circuit what you claim is a grassroots, populist, natural movement, by cramming this as-contentious-as-abortion activism on the SCOTUS agenda?

If a benefit – cost analyses were to be performed on your proposal, the costs to society would far outweigh any benefits since your ~3% of the total population, some subset of which would actually participate in the newly defined ‘marriage’ benefits and privileges, would do little to improve overall society, but, would do far more damage in undermining society by virtue of forcing any redefinition of marriage upon society. Once you have succeeded in legally redefining marriage from between one man and one woman to ‘whatever’, you open up the floodgates for all other groups to redefine it to suit their own agenda. That is not a fallacious slippery slope, that is called precedent, or case law.

Neither gay “marriage’, nor any other unnatural ‘marriage’, should be supported by western civilization because it is useless, if not detrimental, to the continued fitness of the species, and therefore, it is harmful to society- in our case, our free western civilization.

Are you kidding me?! Your argument IS the slippery slope! That’s literally your entire argument! What do you think “explain to me how pedophilia/bestiality/polygamy will be restricted if we let gays marry” means?! It’s the slippery slope fallacy to suggest that the dangers of gay marriage are not in gay marriage, but potentially that it could open the door one day to other relationships being recognized; that IS the slippery slope fallacy in a nutshell. Gay marriage should be debated on its own merits, not on whether or not polygamy will one day be legal.

The optimal system under which children should be raised is in upper middle-class second-generation Asian families. I can show you the data to prove this. Does that mean we should incentivize only these unions? Does that mean only these people should get the freedom to marry or adopt children? No, because we have hundreds of thousands of children who need adoptive parents and as such we should not reject gay couples simply because their genitalia matches up. We do not grant rights based on “optimal outcomes” we grant rights based on what we can show to be true and we can show that the children of homosexuals are not adversely affected by their household situations in any way shape or form. It is completely incorrect to say gays make worse parents or that they cannot adequately provide a home for a child.

SCOTUS took the case because these anti-gay marriage bans got to their desk. I think it’s perfectly within the realm of judicial review to judge if these bans are constitutional, I believe they are not and every circuit judge who has seen it so far has agreed with me it seems. And again, your notion that gay marriage will “undermine society by virtue of forcing any redefinition of marriage” is so ludicrous it cannot be taken seriously. Society does not hinge on only allowing heterosexual couples to marry, and it never has, or else we would see some sort of negative effect in places where gay marriage is legal (please, I beg you, point me to this supposed data)

There’s a distinction between precedent and slippery slope. And that distinction is that the precedent of “redefining marriage” has been set multiple times in this country, as I stated in 1899 and in 1967. Neither time did polygamists allow to marry or any nonsense like that. I’m sorry you don’t understand what the slippery slope is but you constantly use it all the time as an argument so many you should get your head around it.

Your arguments continue to fail. The slippery slope fallacy failed, the “optimal household for raising children” argument fails and this BS cost-effectiveness argument fails. This is why you keep losing in court when it actually matters.

Since you have abandoned your personal attacks/name calling tactics – I will acknowledge your latest comment, and respond, accordingly.

I notice that you did not attempt to tackle the natural law basis for my overall argument. Have you read any of my previous comments that link basic biology and evolution with communities/population dynamics, and societies? Can you counter that argument?

I am going to ignore your baiting on Asian families and other states that have permitted unnatural/irregular marriages that haven’t led to social Armageddon, since I’ve addressed similar, if not exact social arguments in previous comments. Mine is a biological argument- take it on, please.

At the societal level of any species, especially a species where the very foundation of its society is the opposite-sex bonding and procreation mechanism required for its survival is being dissembled (what humans call marriage and what is practiced as the full-spectrum of monogamy in other animal species), you should not be surprised, or insulted, that there would be logical (not based in emotion) opposition to such a cultural-realigning proposition. This opposition is not rooted in prejudice against any one group seeking this redefinition, but, logical opposition against any and all entities that would seek to redefine this natural institution to mean anything but one man and one woman. Are we supposed to look the other way, for fear of hurting feelings, when faced with an assault on the very foundation of our free society? That is political correctness run amuck.

My position on natural marriage is thoroughly rooted in biology, not in sociology (and I could give a fig-leaf for your individual ‘rights’, ‘benefits’ or ‘privileges’ if it means endangering the fitness of my species), or religion. Because Man decided to attach material benefits to natural marriage (‘anthropogenic pollution’), that does not eliminate the dangers associated with redefining the ‘thing” that is, again, the foundation for western civilization, or a free society- if you prefer.

So, as you see, the slippery slope element of my argument comes in much later. Once the gay lobby is permitted to redefine marriage, via a flawed (ideological, corrupt) human institution that sadly evolved away from it’s much purer (rational, fair, honest) Christian canon law predecessor (incidentally) that is poised to cave into ideology (I want) rather than rely on biology (we need) to render its decision, you have now managed to perch yourselves on the edge of that social slippery slope- that which will reverberate back (boomerang) to potentially adversely affect the course of evolution (biology) of our species over time (unselfish analysts must consider the health/fitness of future generations). I did not put you there on that slope, you put you there, so don’t fault me for noticing it, or objecting to it.

Just because you don’t like that slope doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Just because you don’t like nature, or biology, doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect Man, or his future.

If yours is a biological or natural argument then why do you constantly fall back to “the moral underpinnings of society” or refer to a redefinition of marriage as “the destruction of Western society” or “the foundation of our society”? These are nonsensical, paranoid delusions not natural arguments. You even stated that homosexual activists seek to destroy the tradition of marriage and as such seek to destroy the fabric of society, so how is that a natural argument? You can try to be as agreeable as you want in these little rebuttals but in your first posts you use plenty of non-natural or biological based arguments. Stop lying.

Secondly I’ll go ahead and attack your “natural” argument now: we find homosexuality everywhere in nature. It seems to be a natural sex act throughout the animal kingdom, and since our society is based on monogamy it’s not surprising that certain members of our species choose to have lifelong gay relationships. Most other species don’t practice monogamy so they don;t have lifelong gay relationships and homosexuality is far different in those animals. Secondly, and much more importantly, there are very good evolutionary reasons for why homosexuality can aid a population. Having members of a species choose not to procreate allows them to look after the young in a population while others are hunting/gathering/etc. This communal-based parenting works perfectly fine in many animal species, including humans and all primates. It also helps our society a lot when gay couples adopt children abandoned by straights, and any adoption agency will tell you that gays are a vital part of the American adoption agency. As such these are unions our government should have a vested interest in fostering, not restricting them because they cannot have natural procreation.

lol you’re telling me you’re arguing based on natural law but you describe Christian marriage as pure, rational and honest but same sex marriage as iddeological and corrupt. What nonsense. Christian marriage in the majority of modern history was based on economic circumstances, keeping dowries and money in families or selling daughters to rich spouses. It was certainly not more pure and it is not “natural” to assume it was.

We do not organize society based around propogating our species. I don’t know if you’re paying attention but the world is grossly overpopulated, so there’s absolutely no reason we should be incentivizing childbirth, if anything gays are being extremely selfless and vital members of society by choosing not to procreate.

Well, I feel particularly bonded to western civilization since it has afforded Man, as a species, the best (fittest)evolutionary chance for survival. Remember, ZZ- my logical argument hinges on biology being the driver to society, and culture or civilization, not on religion being such. I am sorry if that culture, as is also based upon Christianity, is offensive to you. Apparently, obviously, I do not share your hatred of Christianity, as clearly documented here, so, I must recognize its beneficial contribution to Man as a species, which is also based upon natural law, and to that optimization of the fitness of Man, our evolved society, known as western civilization.

Your rebuttal to the biological argument is frankly, ignorant, at best. Because some members of some species exhibit aberrant behavior, such as homosexual ritualization (not copulation, or mating) does not mean there is an evolutionary advantage to obligate homosexuality (Mans very own version of an aberrant biological behavior). Of course, there is none. Any obligate sexuality, as practiced, that eliminates procreation as a central goal of it’s practice is, naturally, an evolutionary dead end. There is no such thing as homosexuality, as practiced by Man, in nature. There is no benefit to homo sapiens to practice homosexual ritualistic behavior, anymore than there is for Man to practice any other aberrant behavior- such as fratricide, that is the definition of aberrant- it is an evolutionary behavior, or outcome, the puts the species at a distinct disadvantage of survival.

Your railing against ‘overpopulation’ and other perceived societal ills is just more of the usual leftist
[ir]rationale for supporting their desire to commit crimes against nature, or society, as the case may be here.

Your opposition may lose in court, but, we will be redeemed by nature since nature always wins out in the end. The only thing missing from the closing of your emotional rant is the “na, na, na, na, na, na !” so typical of the intellectual giants on your side of this debate.

Thank you, Katy. Increasingly, there are study results that indicate once children are past the nurturing years, a father’s role is more important than the mother’s role. BOTH are important.

I lost my mother at the age of two. I don’t remember anything about her and my father and siblings did not talk about it. I remember being very confused and anxious about the specifics of family relationships and my future at a very young age…..and yet, somehow I knew that males and females were meant to be partners in life.

This is awesome, Katy! I just discovered your blog after the ACLJ posted it on facebook. I’ve had similar positive conversations with the blue-vested Human Rights Campaign people. I’ve gotten their names and given mine and heard their speech. And then just asked them questions about how far they want to redefine marriage, what they would want to define it as, and basically just ask them to defend their assertions. But it’s always been very positive because I’m coming in as someone who wants to hear the other side NOT someone who wants to argue or shout down. And I’ve always had very positive experiences with them, and probably one of the first times anyone has articulated the otherside face-to-face because that’s rather rare! I’ve bookmarked your blog! Thanks!

Still don’t get your logic and how it applies to gay couples w/out children. Shouldn’t your stance be against gay couples becoming parents?

Me personally I don’t care if gay couples get married because it has no impact on my life. As for it impacting kids, if you are that concerned about helping kids I assume you volunteer or donate to charities that provide help to kids. I can’t see you being a mouthpiece who tells others what to do to help kids when you give nothing (taking care of your own doesn’t count).

Take a look at Washington State’s law or any state’s law that redefines marriage and you will find that redefining marriage inherently involves redefining parenthood. The two go together kind of like “love and marriage,” are supposed to. It has an impact on everyone’s lives just like making no fault divorce the law of the land affected our whole society. How is that you ask? By the exact thing you mention. It redefines parenthood. It used to be that parenthood was recorded on a child’s birth certificate simply listing the bioparents as the child’s parents. Now, since the advent of the genderless marriage law the state assigns parenthood. This is a huge expansion of the power of the state to declare a person to be a parent that has no biological relationship to the child without going through the process of detaching the natural parent’s rights. If parenthood is assigned then that is a threat to every family out there if the state decides that you are teaching the right thing or whatever criteria they come up with in the future. There are already countries around the world (like the UK) that have declared that Christian parents are unfit because they won’t teach the state’s world view to their children.

As for impacting kids, are you saying that those of us who advocate for children’s rights can’t do so unless we are actually involved an organization that directly helps children? How does that logically follow and is that the principle that you practice in your own life, not commenting on issues in which you are not directly involved? Following that logic wouldn’t that mean that we wouldn’t be able to speak about abortion, rape, murder or any other things that we think are wrong unless we are actually personally involved with victims of those crimes? Changing the law is actually going to have a far greater impact on children’s lives. Just ask the millions of children who have been affected by the no fault divorce laws.

I’ll speak for myself here but I do believe that children have rights to a relationship with their biological mother and father. This is a right that has been recognized by the UN Convention of the Rights of Children. That right is now being violated by our state (Washington) which happens to have adopted this treaty. So fundamental rights of children are being taken away. I oppose that and want the state to recognize and protect these rights (ala Declaration of Independence). Unfortunately I can’t give those rights to children but can simply advocate for them to the state. So you’re saying I should do what differently?

And that is what you are doing which is why you are on here advocating for a position on children?

I think you are missing the point. What I’m pointing out to you is that it is the state that is violating the rights of children. To remedy this issue I have to take it up with my state reps and advocate for others to do so also. Maybe you can explain how doing what you suggested will actually change the law for the benefit of children and then we could consider it.

And why is it you assume people who advocate for a child’s right to know and be raised by both parents AREN’T directly involved with giving directly to children? I happen to both work directly with, volunteer directly with and donate money directly to children. So…..where are you getting your information?

What do you mean it doesn’t count? I think it is a socialist viewpoint that I should care as much for the child on the other side of the world as I do for my own children. Don’t you think that my children are actually the most important people that I should care for and that I should be ashamed if I didn’t fulfill that responsibility? Can you imagine me running off everyday to take care of other children and neglecting my own. What you are saying illustrates exactly why God gave us families. We are constructed with concentric circles of influence and responsibility starting with our own families and then our churches and friend and our broader communities ect. Starting from the inner one our influence and responsibility diminishes as we move out. From the socialist outlook what sounds good is that I care for all children equally but what ends up happening is that I actually end up having responsibility for none.

The institution that is supposed to take care of children is the family. The state has put in laws such as genderless marriage and no fault divorce which actually act to break up the natural family. For instance in no fault divorce the state acts on behalf of the party that is least committed to the relationship and in doing so acts on behalf of breaking families up which then leads to dependency on the state and growth of the state.

It is a non sequetur to say that we can’t advocate for laws if we aren’t involved directly in some family agency. Maybe you can explain how it is that by that same logic you also would have to show your own involvement with the same to come on here and say what you are saying.

It’ll impact your life the first time one of the radical activists in the rainbow brigade decides that you did not sufficiently salute his/her lifestyle choices (all sexual behavior is a choice).

Just ask a few of the military chaplains and leadership that were required to declare, against their conscious, their absolute support of/for all gaydom.

Then, ask the elderly woman in Washington who’s religious conviction (aka conscious) would not permit her to participate in a gay wedding, and now faces losing not only her livelihood (and retirement), but her home. No, you may not see yourself making these stands, but , as soon as you do draw a line (we ALL have lines, it is human nature), you will be ostracized.

Is this truly the freedom the gay rights movement envisioned for themselves- or others?

gsmwc02, Thanks for sharing. So your family and friends help you determine what you believe? Is there an underlying philosophy that directs that or something else? Why would it apply outside of yourself and family and friends? Thanks for taking time to reply.

What do you mean by freedom? Does having freedom entail responsibilities that go with that freedom, such as having to deal with the consequences of acting on those freedoms? Do freedoms come from God as our founders believed or some other philosophy you would like to articulate?

It is interesting that you claim “everyone” hates freedom because you do not offer any proof of that. You made another accusation above when you said “it is clear that the movement is not based on . . .” Really–how so? Do you think “because I say so” makes something true? Why? You deploy some crude rhetorical manipulations. Does that work for you? Because its not very impressive.

He’s another disingenuous manipulator– Trace his moves through the thread because they are very telling. When he doesn’t get the response he wants–demands really, the abusive rage and manipulation set in. That’s what passes for normal interaction in the community. Although he must be young or 2 people or stoned because he has the moves out of order–he should have done whole victim of bullying 1st and then the the suicide. This is what the kids live with every day–distortions, attention seeking, controlling and narcissistic abuse. He pretty much conforms to the pattern of abusive moves that characterizes interaction.

What do you mean by gay? It is a fact that there are lots of people who have an attraction to people of the same sex. Having attractions is far different from acting on those attractions and of course that wouldn’t just apply to this issue. Are you asking how a Christian should approach this?

It is not okay to use women as reproductive slaves. It is not okay to buy and sell children. Now go cry bigot. As I said people are not invested in other peoples internal artificial dramas. People care when a group demands to be supplied with other people’s children. When men think they have the right to cause the deaths of 3rd world women–

BTW If you feel suicidal call a suicide hot line–1800-273-8255 see I looked it up for you. What can do is stop the manipulative drama–the whole good-bye cruel world. You got the # call it.
or go on twitter and trawl for pity.

Hi Butters, I don’t think one’s attraction is a choice, but that it’s the result of many factors starting even in the womb. [Nature + nurture]. Shouldn’t the desire be “to be healthy” vs. “to be unhealthy”? Just because we feel something doesn’t mean it won’t change OR that it’s what’s best for us. Personally, when I started dealing with the hurt from my parents/family and how I saw my parents marriage, my struggles with gender identity and same-sex attraction resolved. It wasn’t “shock therapy” or “pray-away-the-gay”, it was basic psychological principles of talking through and resolving deeply rooted emotional hurt. Hope that encourages you? And YOU aren’t an abomination. Jesus loves you dearly. 🙂

Butters: Who in this post made even an implication that you should kill yourself based on your sexuality? Is that even a serious question or just a quip? Anyway, here goes:

As for “is it okay to be gay?”, that’s a fairly vague question and one that’s open to a lot of interpretation. Is is okay to have attraction to the same sex? Is it okay to love another of the same sex? Is it okay to have sex with another of the same sex? Is it okay to marry another of the same sex? All of these interpretations fit that question.

I don’t think the question should be “Is it okay to be gay?”. I think the question is “Do I HAVE to be gay?”. We are all born with characteristics that are immutable. My blue eyes, my shade of brown hair, my skin color. We are also born with pre-dispositions toward certain things. My mother’s alcoholism, my father’s tendency to hoard. The quick temper. There is no voluntary action that goes with blue eyes or brown hair. There IS a voluntary action that goes with alcoholism, hoarding, anger. I can choose to not take that first drink. I can share my things or just choose not to buy them in the first place. I can act by walking away when the tension escalates. Is it hard? Yes. Harder for me to do that than someone who doesn’t have the same pre-dispositions as another? Yes, I think so. There are also conditions that could come to me that I may not be able to control independently but can do so with the love and help of my family and my community. Anxiety, autism, diabetes, etc. These things are not bad……you are not bad if you have anxiety or autism or diabetes. But you and those who love you will benefit if you make healthy choices in how you choose to handle those issues. You are identified by what you choose to do, not what you are born with or born without.

Re: “abomination”. I honestly can’t say I know anyone who thinks being gay is an abomination. I know people, myself included, who think it’s not a healthy decision. I’ve seen people post hateful comments like that on other posts, but random people on a blog or website post nasty crap everywhere…it pops up on everything from playful kitten posts to gay posts to religious posts to random posts about random things. Haters gonna hate. After reading about AskMe and reading her posts and seeing that we don’t play that game, why did you choose that specific word? Just wondering.

Peace to you, Butters. I don’t think you’re an “abomination” or even a “bad” person if you are gay, however that plays out. I think you’re a person looking to find happiness in the way that seems best to you, just like the rest of us. I just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t mean we can’t find a way to co-exist without stepping on each other’s rights or, more importantly, stepping on the rights of every child to know, be loved by and be raised by their biological parents.

Freedom is children being able to be, first and foremost, then being raised by their biological parents, for which there is no equivalent replacement, and then for all people to be able to state and/or argue their rational/logical positions without being called disparaging names or be accused of nefarious actions.

Freedom is respecting speech, regardless of your agreement with it, and no matter how or if it might offend you. Freedom is not caving into bullying that is designed to serve only the most selfish segments of society- both hetero and homo.

Homosexuals are perfectly free to choose to live heterosexual lives and raise their biological children themselves, providing for them the very basic necessities of life such as two opposite sex biological parents required to raise an emotionally healthy and balanced human being fully equipped to compete in the common and predominant heterosexual marketplace of life. Drawing the line of ‘gay rights’ where it attempts to intersect with children- a product of heterosexual unions, only, and determining the path of future generations is entirely appropriate. Being “gay” (by your own definition and as observed for several generations) has never meant being “married” or “having” or raising children. That distortion of all reality happened when the gay rights movement permitted itself to be hijacked by anarchists. We all must maintain ‘lane control’- no one asks gays to sacrifice anymore than anyone else does in order to ensure that future generations are fit.

There simply and factually is no suitable and equitable replacement for the natural family unit in which to raise children.

And, while we argue the absolute silliness of gay marriage and parenting, the rest of the world moves on to consume us in such ways as to threaten our very existence. While we’re embroiled in nonsensical domestic wars, there are most serious threats to our very existence as our true (capable, emboldened) enemies plot our destruction as a democratic state, and republic. Get your damned selfish heads out of your crotches (hetero and homo, again-lest a purposeful ‘misunderstanding’ occur) long enough to smell the burning coffee. We’re under serious assault by those that would take all our freedoms away from us. The gay activist-radicals (as well as other naïve communities’ radical left wing) have permitted themselves to be used by those that would gladly kill them for nothing more than their very existence. How very nice of the Judeo-Christian west to provide this “I want more” platform to you- for your delight and entertainment. Be sure you don’t wind up biting (or severing) the same hand that has been protecting you and ensuring all of your most basic freedoms for millennia.

Rome is burning, the barbarians are destroying it. The people have gathered round to watch the spectacle and comment on it to each other, wondering what Rome will look like afterwards. A few brave souls have gotten out their swords and are attempting drive out the barbarians.

We are witnessing the turning back of the hands of time, back to a pre-Christian time in Europe and what the family looked like then. If you replace the foundations of a house it will affect how the house sits, how it endures. We are replacing the foundations of our nation and it will have effects on the type of society that is produced. We are bringing the destruction on ourselves.

The only people preventing children from being raised by their biological parents are the biological parents of those children. Gay couples aren’t preventing that from happening. If the bio-parents get divorced, that child won’t be raised by one of their parents. If the bio-parents give their child up for adoption, that child won’t be raised by both of their parents. If the state takes the child away from irresponsible bio-parents, that child won’t be raised by both of their parents. Some gay couples adopt those parentless children. They didn’t TAKE them away from their bio-parents.

“Being “gay” (by your own definition and as observed for several generations) has never meant being “married” or “having” or raising children.”

Society demonized and criminalized homosexuality, and you’re blaming gay people for not being allowed to marry or raise children? Seriously? Gay people have raised children, most likely throughout human history. There are gay parents raising hundreds of thousands of children right now — regardless if they can or can’t get married. Society made sure that gay citizens couldn’t marry… that doesn’t mean that gays didn’t want to marry twenty years ago, or a century ago. That’s ludicrous. That’s like saying, interracial couples didn’t REALLY want to get married before the Supreme Court forced interracial marriage on the country in 1967.

There is ample evidence of human trafficking by the gay communty. Your comment “Yet I don’t see your side submitting amicus briefs in court trying to ban parenting made by grandparents, sibling parents, 2nd order relation-parent, step-parents, single parents, state parents, etc. Weird, huh? Only same-sex parenting must be stopped for the sake of the children, all those other types of sub-par parenting… not so much. But there’s no anti-gay animus going on at all, right? Oh, okay.”

Get the truck so we drive through the holes in your argument– 1–Biological relatives are the 1st choice for children that are orphaned. 2nd, the groups you mention are not taking part in human trafficking and in what dreamland were any of those groups before SCOTUS–good god learn to make sense and deal with reality–. Reality is your friend.

World wide 90% of reproductive slavery is being done for profit by gay men–no other group in the history of the world has ever attempted to turn 3rd world impoverished women into breed animals and to sell humans–only gay men–for profit billion dollar baby breeding and selling–that’s not family, not by a long shot.

You’ve heard of blood diamonds–these are blood children. Dolce and Gabana were too kind and tactful with synthetic–they should have said human blood diamonds.

Getting married is not magic that piece of paper will not get men pregnant and society does not owe anyone other peoples children. So stop advocating for human rights violations it does not make you look like parent material.

“World wide 90% of reproductive slavery is being done for profit by gay men–no other group in the history of the world has ever attempted to turn 3rd world impoverished women into breed animals and to sell humans…”

Where are you getting your stats on this? How many gay men are doing this? …100? …1,000? …10,000? …a million? Regardless, I don’t think you’re going to find anyone on this website that supports human trafficking or reproductive slavery. Very few people anywhere would support those issues. But for some reason, millions of gay Americans that have absolutely nothing to do with “reproductive slavery” are now responsible for the actions of a few, and can not only not get civilly married, but they can’t adopt parentless children through normal legal means. To say you’ve gone completely off-the-rails would be a vast understatement. My childless marriage has absolutely nothing to do with human trafficking. Even if I had adopted a child through a state agency, it would still have nothing to do with reproductive slavery. But you keep trying to link secular civil marriage to “human blood diamonds” while we all collectively roll our eyes. I’m sure the Supreme Court will give it the attention it deserves right before they rule in favor of marriage equality in a few months.

“…and society does not owe anyone other peoples children.”

So no adoptions by anyone then, correct? If straight couples give their children up for adoption (or the state takes the children away because the bio-parents are irresponsible), the child should remain a ward of the state because society does not owe ANYONE (not just gay people) other peoples children. Thanks for that clarification.

Read the news–look up the names and owners of reproductive slave businesses–Tony Barlow, Barrie Drewitt, Tammuz, Lotus –all owned by gay men. You do concede that gay men are a group–remember the long twisted tale of woe and oppression, fight for equality and all that? So yeah, no other group in human history has turned poor 3rd world women in reproductive slaves–there’s nothing incorrect in this statement. Gay men are perpetrating the worst human rights violations against 3rd world women and children of any group in the indudstrilzed west. Also a correct statement. They also own and operate the largest for profit human trafficking “surrogacy” business in the world. Also correct. You can look this up it is no secret. Gay men have made an industry out of the commodfication of women and the sale of children.

What’s the problem–the facts? I doubt it. You just do not want people to notice and say it. You put reproductive slavery in quotes–why? You think women really want to be confined in compounds and forcibly impregnated? Or do you think poor brown women are not human? Which one? BTW people used to roll their eyes at gay marriage. They will not eye roll on reproductive slavery for too long and blood diamond babies will also stick.

Save the deflections. Any the posturing questions.
There’s no “but what about heterosexuals” or “what about childless . . . ” or “how many” Fact: the HRC condones and supports human rights violations against women and children. Fact: GLAAD supports human rights violations against women and children. Fact : Western white 1st world Gay men are life threatening to 3rd world impoverished women of childbearing age. As a whole LGBT condones, supports reproductive slavery and the abuse of women and children–.

What if? what about? The answer–so what.

SCOTUS will most certainly come back in favor. Again so what? India has ruled against gay men buying babies, so has Thailand, Uganda, Kenya–SCOTUS can’t force other countries to sell gay men wombs and babies.

there is nothing more to say. The worst human rights violation committed by the west.

In other words, you pulled that 90% stat out of your a$$. Just as I thought. You couldn’t even provide one link that proves that gay men are solely responsible for reproductive slavery around the world— or how many gay men are using these services (compared to straight people). I read that Tony Barlow had a woman in California agree to be a surrogate. Doesn’t sound like she’s a “3rd world impoverished woman” to me. No doubt, she willingly offered her services in exchange for money. I’m not in a position to tell this woman what she can and can’t do with her body. That being said, Tony and his partner sound like self-centered douche bags. But they don’t represent all gay people — they certainly don’t represent me or my husband. Until a few minutes ago, I had never even heard of them.

So because these four gay men (you listed) are using/promoting surrogacy, unlike the thousands upon thousands of straight infertile couples that are doing exactly the same thing, all gay people shouldn’t be able to marry or adopt children. Makes perfect sense.

You’re right, there is nothing more to say. No one here supports “gay men buying babies” (or anyone else doing that); and the only one conflating adoption and marriage with “reproductive slavery” is you.

Thank you for making my point, David, society did, wrongly, criminalize homosexuality- and society is getting it wrong, again, regarding ‘gay marriage’ and encouraging the creation of Frankenstein children sans the natural, proven method that has ensured the current fitness of homo sapiens. It is thanks to nature, as correctly revealed via Judeo-Christian philosophy, that we have evolved to a point where homosexuals are no longer persecuted. Unfortunately, ironically, now we have evolved (actually, its a deterioration), thanks to secularism/humanism, to a dangerous place where the Judeo-Christian philosophy that afforded freedom to all it’s people is under serious threat- a threat that will ensure the decline of the human species, and also threaten all of our freedoms- as granted/provided to us, naturally (if you’re a believer, then by God)- not by the state.

So, the take-away lesson here is to look to nature for the solutions to our problems and for our path forward. I am going to assume that you are the product of a traditional male-female coupling, probably within the confines of true marriage. How very betraying of you that the very same successful system that generated you, and probably your parents, going back millennia, is now under assault by you. Perhaps you were overindulged, causing such selfishness as to demand to remove this optimal family setting for others, and so necessary to the fitness of future generations.

And, that is what selfishness does. It pits insanity/irrationality against sanity/rationality, it distorts all reality for the sole purpose of gaining the ‘thing’ being sought for purely selfish purposes. “I Want” has been the bane of the human experience- it has caused immense suffering. Right now, the “I Want” is totally focused on the material- it is about material entitlements, and it is about depriving others of the uniqueness of their natural entitlements (true marriage, children)- that which will determine the path of western culture.

But, have you ever thought about this, as you selfishly use the behemoth that is the state, to get your ‘want’; right now the ever-fleeting ideology is in your favor. What becomes of you, after ensuring the state has solidly locked in their authority over society’s redefinition of marriage, religious freedom and life – when that state’s ideology isn’t so aligned with your ideology? What happens when you have succeeded in crushing the Christian philosophy that permitted your community to evolve to this point- to a point of freedom where they feel justified in destroying the very system that ensured their freedoms? What replaces that void? I know- take a look at Europe. Sure secularism is exciting, even fun, briefly – if you’re just really into yourself. But, it is never sustaining. If Europe does not readopt it’s Christian origins, what do you predict will fill that void? What is it you see happening over there, and in Africa and the Mideast? How about the secularism of China, North Korea, Russia all these decades- have those been good places for homosexuals – or anybody?

To whom shall you turn when your Astroturf state has turned on you? Or, in your selfishness of “I Want”, and I want I now and to hell with future generations – haven’t you managed to think that far ahead?

Of course not.

Homosexuality, as practiced, did not evolve altruistic characteristics- why would it- how could it? It is about the solo (selfish) human experience/adventure- not the permanent coupling that defines opposite sex marriage and child bearing/raising – all of which requires the absolute commitment to altruism for success.

Here’s an idea for you- why not be the very best, good homosexual that you can be; don’t try to be what can only be a very poor heterosexual, and heterosexuals will not try to be, what would amount to be, very bad homosexuals. Be gay, be proud- but, please stop trying to be married, and parents- it is not what nature deigned you should be.

You mean, the biblical reasons for criminalizing it turned out to be wrong? How could that be? Anyway, the Bible-derived arguments against SSM are definitely true. Just like Bible-derived arguments against miscegenation.

No, FyVa- homosexuality is largely criminalized in non-Judeo-Christian cultures- you’re factually wrong, in spite of your emotional investment in your position. The Bible morally condemns homosexual behavior, as it does all adulterous behavior, but it does not criminalize it, only the state can criminalize anything.

Because evil people distort scripture to suit their own selfish means does not make it so. The age-old claim that the Bible supported slavery and other human state-controlled abominations is just that old- and untrue. The Bible is wholly supportive of nature, and there is no barrier in nature that prevents any two opposite sex individuals, of any color, from breeding. But, there is a natural barrier that prevents two same sex individuals from procreating.

Just curious- how do you blame the Bible for bigotry in non-Christian states-where all forms of state-compelled and enforced bigotry are rampant?

Fy Va–There are no arguments in OT against miscegenation it went on all the time– Moses was married to a black women. if you are going to take a position it is best to do so armed with the facts and some knowledge.

I didn’t know United states were non-Judeo-Christian culture until 2003, when homosexuality was finally decriminalized by Lawrence v Texas decision of Supreme Court. By the way, the most Catholic Justice – Scalia (he’s more Cathlic than the Pope) – still thinks that decision was wrong.

>Because evil people distort scripture to suit their own selfish means does not make it so.
One person’s “distortion” is another person’s unquestionable Truth. Because THE BIBLE SAID SO.

>The age-old claim that the Bible supported slavery and other human state-controlled
abominations is just that old- and untrue.

That’s all in the Bible, if you ever read it. Oh, if you don’t know, the Old Testament also prescribes medicinal abortions in case of suspected infidelity, and sets the price for it as one tenth of ephah of barley flour. Book of Numbers, chapter 5.

>how do you blame the Bible for bigotry in non-Christian states

In the large scheme of things, the broblem in not a specific book, be it Bible or Koran, or Book of Mormons. The problem is when people are doing what they are told by “spiritual leaders”, without thinking whether it’s right or wrong. When people are told to believe things without doubting it. By the way, Communist countries had their own religion: cult of personality of their leaders. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Tseng – they were Gods for their people.

>There are no arguments in OT against miscegenation it went on all the time

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

That’s from the decision of the trial judge in the Lovings case, Leon M. Bazile. You know that you made God up, when God thinks the same way that you (and hates the same people as you).

What condescending tripe. If Rush Limbaugh has the privilege of being able to have FOUR non-procreative marriages (just because he happened to be born straight), you’re just going to have to suck it up and deal with the fact that gay Americans are entitled to civil equality in the matter of marriage. I said CIVIL, not religious. I couldn’t care less what your particular church or God has to say about marriage.

The idea that Judeo-Christian philosophy is responsible for gay citizens clawing their way to some level of civil equality is laughable. Religion has gone out of its way to demonize (and continues to demonize) homosexuality. If religious (conservative/Republican) people didn’t exist in the U.S., I guarantee you that gay citizens would have been equal members of society a long time ago.

So if we don’t live under a Christian theocracy (as opposed to secularism/humanism), the human species will decline. Really? So straight people will no longer marry and have children if gay couples can ALSO get married. Try again. No one is “removing this optimal family setting for others”. Such nonsense. This is not an all of nothing proposition. If gay couples can marry, it doesn’t prevent you from also getting married and knocking out of truck-load of children if you desire. You simply don’t want gay people to be your social equal because the Bible said so.

There’s no such thing as “true” marriage, or “natural” marriage for that matter. We don’t even need to go back a millennia to know that marriage in 2015 is nothing like it was 200 years ago. Women are no longer the property of their husbands. Women can have credit in their names, and own property. Women are equal partners in marriages. If you won’t acknowledge that marriage has been redefined numerous times throughout our country’s history, there’s really nothing more to discuss.

There is nothing selfish in demanding that the United State of America follows through on its promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — to ALL of its citizens. Being able to marry the adult of your choosing is part of that promise. And adopting a child that doesn’t have ANY parents is the opposite of being selfish. I’m fairly certain a child would choose two parents over having zero parents. Call it a hunch.

“Be gay, be proud- but, please stop trying to be married, and parents- it is not what nature deigned you should be. You’ve got your parade, bells, whistles and all – please stop raining on ours.”

Like I said, condescending tripe. I don’t think you’re in a position to speak for “nature”, or gay people for that matter. Sorry, but you don’t get to define how gay people have to live their lives. You don’t have that right anymore.

But, apparently you get to redefine the heterosexual, monogamous union that defines marriage for all of us-right?

And, you, only because you are ‘gay’- or actually not so gay after all (another redefinition meant to alter culture), gets to speak for nature- because, after all- it is your approximately 2% of the human population that has sacrificed (you know, when marriage, child bearing and rearing meant all sacrifice and no bennies) over eons to ensure the fitness of our species- right?

Perhaps, we can both just permit nature to speak for itself. And, in doing so, it has determined that opposite sex pair-bonding is the optimal condition in which to bear and raise offspring. Or, perhaps, the gay community will impose it’s ideological beliefs on nature, too? Is nature bigoted? Is nature ideological- does it have an agenda? Does nature have it’s very own “Rush Limbaugh”? And, how ironic you invoke women’s rights, all the while being a proponent in action, of the very opposite. Are you concerned about women’s rights in China, or the Muslim culture – how about those impoverished and oppressed wombs in India- they have any rights? How’d that women’s rights thing work out in pagan cultures?

Have you actually ever studied nature, history or observed your current world around you? Or, are you intellectually blinded by your own emotionally-driven and extremely selfish desires?

It didn’t take long for this leftist activists true colors to bleed through- it never does.

This battle has nothing to do with gaining rights for an oppressed or underprivileged class; it is all about the engineered collapse of the Judeo-Christian culture/society, and nothing more.

1) The idea that Judeo-Christian philosophy is responsible for gay citizens clawing their way to some level of civil equality is laughable. Religion has gone out of its way to demonize (and continues to demonize) homosexuality. If religious (conservative/Republican) people didn’t exist in the U.S., I guarantee you that gay citizens would have been equal members of society a long time ago.

This statement is ignoring a key aspect of history. The gay movement and same-sex marriage movement has its origins in what has been called the Christian West. It is correct that Christianity discourages Homosexuality, and some Christians have demonized it, yet there is a universal respect accorded to people according to Christianity. It is this respect and willingness to tolerate that has allowed both movements to gain traction. As opposed to the Islamic Middle East or communistic China. Whatever complaints you have about Christianity, some of the principles embedded in Christianity has allowed you even a chance to push for same-sex marriage.

2) So if we don’t live under a Christian theocracy (as opposed to secularism/humanism), the human species will decline.

Jae’s point was that secularism is not self-sustaining, and he’s correct. Secularism/Humanism/Atheism have been proven to have a negative impact on birth-rates, to the point where the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is below the healthy replacement rate necessary to sustain a nation. Even a cursory glance at most Western European nations reveal that this is not only true, but it’s something they are struggling with. Some countries, like Germany, are giving financial incentives for people to have children. Most of them are using immigration to fill in the deficit (with a different set of consequences). There are other factors, but we have data showing that couples who practice religion have more children than the irreligious.

Now, this does not require a theocracy to fix, but a greater emphasis and respect toward religion can do the work necessary to maintain a healthy TFR. This is not debated science, but simple social fact.

Sodomy was criminalized in the states, not, homosexuality. Many a dissertation on the origin and application of these laws throughout the world, throughout history, has been undertaken- why not educate yourself?

Scalia’s objection to striking down these law was based upon principles of law, not ethics – pretty similar to the Roe V Wade decision. SCOTUS isn’t supposed to make decisions based in ethics or morals, but, that fact seems lost among the hand-wringing emotionality of the SSM issue.

Your swipe at Scalia about “being more Catholic than the Pope” clearly displays your own palpable bigotry against Catholics -who are NT folks, so take up your intentional distortions and misinterpretations of the OT with those scholars (because, I am pretty sure biblical exegesis is not your area of expertise). Taking scripture out of context is the favorite three-card Monte game of the left – we need not play it here.

And, finally, quoting a bigoted judge regarding miscegenation does not remotely support your incredibly weak defense of your own ignorance. There have never been natural barriers between ‘the races’ and even a cursory review of basic evolution, geology or anthropology might have revealed that fact for you. As a matter of fact, race does not exist in nature – it is a social construct. Just as are the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality. But, we’ll play along with you, anyway.

But, it is a worthwhile exercise to see you unravel here, and in doing so, document your hatred for Jews and Christians, as well as anyone who dare oppose you in your disordered desire to destroy marriage, and ultimately Western Civilization.

Just for the sake of curiosity- from who or what do you take your moral and ethical marching orders? If you’ve got them, they had to originate from somewhere.

Remind us- why is it your lobby insists on changing the definition of marriage? Aside from the usual “equality” and ‘rights’ mantra – are you even capable of formulating an argument for or defense of your proposal?

Just because someone says NO to you doesn’t mean they hate you. I have to believe that your parents had to say NO to you, occasionally, too (although, by your behavior exhibited here, one might wonder)- did they hate you?

Maybe someone can correct me here but my understanding is that our founders criminalized sodomy allow with other extra marital activities because they had studied history and concluded that this was a major component in what led to the destruction of previous civilizations.

As for the Biblical connection I don’t think you have to look any farther than Leviticus 20. If you read the first part of 20 it talks about all the detestable things that people that were living in Canaan were doing. Then in verse 23 it says “And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.” Now notice that there aren’t the Hebrew people who He is punishing at this point but He seems to be holding the pagan nations responsible to some form of natural law since He hadn’t revealed Himself to them. From this you can see how our founders concluded that God punished nations and not just individuals.

Obviously in the New Testament they weren’t living under a theocracy and so I think that is why you see when Paul talks about the church he isn’t trying to give the church civil powers. However he does give the church as an institution directions on how to deal with these situations. An example of this is in 1 Corinthians 5 where he deals with a man who was sleeping with his step mother. He castigates the church for not kicking out this person. In chapter 6 then he lists a series of reasons that would keep people from inheriting the Kingdom of God and then he goes on to remind them that they had been guilty of some of those practices.

>Maybe someone can correct me here but my understanding is that our founders criminalized sodomy allow with other extra marital activities because they had studied history and concluded that this was a major component in what led to the destruction of previous civilizations.

Sodomy has never contributed to the destruction of any previous civilization. Sodomy, in fact, was just as prevalent in Greece and Rome at the height of those empires as the decline of them. So I seriously doubt “they studied history” and came to that conclusion. Maybe if they did study the history they would notice that Rome fell not too long after Christianity got a hold of it. So maybe they should have outlawed that practice. I would imagine sodomy being illegal was due to the puritan nature of the early United States

Good god you are so predicable and they say Gay men are smart. Look it up yourself none of it is hidden–although they try really hard. Funny you should mention it. Is that women suing Barlow and Drewitt.
Poor guys wow they have some legal problems–charges of fraud too–and found guilty.

Did you see the published piece on Mr. Barlow and Drewitt –advertising on Grindr with a pic of the kids–

keepin it classy. Fatherhood’s finest moment.

Yep “love makes a family”. Who could imagine such a thing? Okay maybe Terry Bean could but two loving Dads putting kids on Grinder–saying they try anything once. But I wonder if they would go for twice, or over and over. Are you a follower of their causes? Yes, they are moving inspirations to the LGBT struggle–a profound force in the human rights fight. Oh when will the injustice end? Next time you bring up your heroes why don’t you take my advice already and educate yourself. So thank you for proving my point–the utter arrogance. Do you think the other readers here know about all the advocates for intergenerational love or just those who champion Barlow and Drewitt as examples to be held high. You also proves point I have not made.

Another fraudulent statement is that homosexuals have wanted to be married and have children since time immemorial, and it was society that demonized homosexuals, and prevented access to their ‘rights’ and their ‘wants’.

The Education of Mr. David is impossible to undertake on a blog site; suffice it to say it is truly an indictment of our whole US (and western, overall) education system, which produced the most ignorant citizenry in her glorious brief history over the past two generations that has led to the election of leaders (both sides of that political aisle), that have also managed to stack the SCOTUS, and other Federal and state jurisdictions with similarly-disposed ignoramus’, as well as led to the damning low-information voter that has succeeded in putting this nation in real peril.

I particularly liked these two paragraphs:
The question of marriage and children are separate issues. No gay marriage has every denied a child a right to parents, but then there can be no such right. It is not enforceable against anyone. No one is obligated to provide parents to parentless children.

If religious opponents of same-sex marriage really believed children had a right to parents, they’d be lined up to adopt them. They aren’t. They would rather leave those children without any parents than see a same-sex couple provide a loving home to them.

“No such right” okay the UN got it all wrong when it said every child has the right to a mother and father–

One of the amicus briefs submitted to SCOTUS touched on the idea reparations for the children. At the hearing a Justice (maybe 2) stated twice that the social science in favor of SS parenting was not reliable, in fact questionable and suspect. The court has been informed and made aware of problems from children raised in ss situations . Not a single same sex couple can reproduce together. Now exactly why should we as a society decide that children should be denied their right to a mother and a father? That’s a bridge too far, and Elton John is not convincing–and if he is . . .

Given the fact that the court has been made aware of the issues if courts choose to proceed despite having been provided with information then they will have overstepped. The children will have every right to come forward and demand to be paid reparations for a human rights violation. There are more than enough international precedents for reparations paid to people damaged by really horrific social policy and experiments. This could get rather expensive. If one considers everyone who had their human rights violated will have a claim—egg donors, surrogates, children—and it would apply to adoption as well.

If a couple get 160,000 because someone would not bake a cake how much will all the children et al get? Do the math. The courts now know and that clears the path for all the future children to be compensated. These kids will and should come forward they’ll deserve every penny for being forced to live in a social experiment. Here’s a radical idea, let’s stop using kids as human guinea pigs based on junk science that was created specifically to obscure and distort facts on behalf of self centered adults.

David0296, you mention religious opponent to same sex marriage. I think we all know we are talking about Christians here. Clearly you wouldn’t be posting on here if you didn’t have a strong belief about what is right and wrong. Would you share what it is that guides you to the conclusions that you come to? Is that not a religious belief, a belief about what is ultimately true?

Parenting has been redefined as a byproduct of genderless marriage. What used to be a simple recognition of the bio parents on a birth certificate has now been replaced by the state declaring a person to be the parent of a child. So the state is assigning children to families and that is a threat to every family. In this view children belong to the state instead of to families.

I don’t know where this guy is getting his information on Christian parents from but I can think of 10 to 15 friends of mine who have adopted because they care about children. In truth it is the changes in the state laws on marriage that have created this mess to begin with.

What you seem to be missing here is the demand by some of these genderless marriages to have their “own” children. This is made possible through IVF and gamete donors. What is possible today is truly astounding. Children have been objectified. You can pick out male and female gametes, have them shipped to India where a rented womb awaits to grow your product and ship it back to you nine months later.

Oh, so many lies and distortions in David’s summary of the HuffPo article (insert palms to face), and such little space.

Marriage and children are as organically symbiotic as fish and water. The very genesis of marriage was to form and solidify the bond between male and female that would be most productive and protective of children. Marriage then became the ‘single-cell’ unit that would be the baseline of the organism- which is a self-sustaining society. The fact that some marriages are childless is no more a factor in that necessary bond than some water is sometime fishless and some fish are sometime waterless. It is a rare occurrence that nature keeps in check since it an unhealthy state.

When the definition of marriage is changed, so too will be the natural family unit, an so too will be society. It doesn’t matter that it happens to be gays seeking this change, for now; it matters that the proposed change cannot be sufficiently rationalized to improve the current state of marriage, or society. The gay lobby has not done its homework in providing any rationale for why society should be changed. All they have done is said “we want it, we have a right to it”. Well, your ‘wants’ may not necessarily be good for the family, our children or our society- which is why you are faced with opposition to your proposal. It isn’t the fact that you are gay, it is the fact that you propose a major change to these institutions with no history to fall back on, and with no logical predictions of outcomes.

What do you say to opponents who do not cite religious objections to your redefinition of marriage, and ultimately society?

What do you say to your opponents who cite nature, philosophy, science, anthropology, history, and current affairs- completely void of any religious convictions, as their cause for concern over your proposal?

David: I read the article you recommended by James Peron. Setting aside for the moment the important issues of LGBTQ civil marriage and adoption, wouldn’t you agree that every human child starts with the basic right (or synonym) to its natural mother and father? Apologies if you have replied elsewhere on the blog.

“…wouldn’t you agree that every human child starts with the basic right (or synonym) to its natural mother and father?”

I don’t think anyone is saying that a child shouldn’t be raised by their biological parents if at all possible. Gay couples being able to marry doesn’t impact that scenario. Which is pretty much what that article from James Peron states. I’ve been legally married to my husband for over 7 years. I’ve yet to see a child ripped away from their biological parents because of that. — And if we were to adopt a child, that child would only be available because the bio-parents either gave that child up for adoption, or the state took the child away because the parents were unsuitable to raise the child properly. In both cases the child is parentless because of the actions of the bio-parents, not the gay couple. So, no, the anti-gay marriage meme “Every child has a right to a mother and father.” is false. The bio-parents determine whether or not they are going to raise their child, not vice versa.

Thanks for the clarification David. The James Peron article was flawed, IMO, from the outset with the loopy idea “When we are talking about ‘rights’ we are talking about a legal entitlement.” Once upon a time in the 1970s, I saw this same mistake used to legally protect and thereby perpetuate violence against openly homosexual friends.

Your position seems much more thoughtful and crafted around your relationship. If at all possible, I would urge you to find older (>40 yr) children of LGBTQ parents out there whom you can know and trust (not us internet strangers), and talk to them one-on-one before you and yours make decisions about bringing a child into the relationship.

“Unable to relate…” I found this line particularly humorous because my current pastor is a very relatable guy. He’s actually kind of a dork.

Which, ironically, I suppose sums up the video. This isn’t intelligent and at least four of his points (Use Academic Sources, Be Relentless, Exploit Emotional Triggers, & Play the Victim) is something I’ve seen the pro-Same-Sex Marriage side use. To be completely blunt, I’ve seen both of you, FyVa, and David use these styles. So, if you’re posting a video mocking using those, does that mean you’re mocking yourselves?

Actually, it’s the gay activists utilizing all seven of these ploys to push their agenda, via judicial and political activism, and not by grassroots uprising, as was the case for any previous civil rights gains, onto a reluctant populace. We’ve seen this before with Roe v Wade- and, look at where we are with that still-divisive SCOTUS decision. Now, since slippery slopes are actual formations in nature, we’re ok with partially birthing full term babies for the sole purpose of killing them in the most barbaric manner possible- because, ya know, ‘it’ will be an inconvenience to ‘its’ parents. Selfish behavior is not the sole domain of homosexuals- it prevails throughout secular-humanism, by definition.

What seems to be missing from the leftist propagandists quaint little video clip- including the adorable, haughty and ever-so superior British accent, is the law of nature argument – waddup widdat? Could it be…..no, is it possible, nah….that this is the Holy Grail that actually supports the naturally-evolved institution of marriage (which predates all religions) as the backbone of all society, but, especially of a free society?

Then, of course, we couldn’t possibly be spared the usual anti-Christian bigotry- well, because we all know how the pendulum has swung in favor of Christian morality and ethics-right? If the radicals actually believed in what they’re pushing (pushers never really are true believers), they would have also used the Crescent and Star of David symbols to support their tired religious oppression mantra since many/most of those religions sects also oppose ‘gay marriage’ – but, we’re not very brave (or even remotely squeaky-vocal) about that reality- are we?

With such clever little ditties as these, it is no wonder the radical/activist gay lobby will have to force their agenda on to society via judicial fiat as it is painfully obvious that they are incapable of intellectualizing or rationalizing their biologically unsustainable and unnatural ideological position.

The gay lobby has won 60% of support from the public. The only reason those anti-gay marriage bans were passed was because the conservative lobbies are smart and knew what they were doing. They saw Massachusetts voluntarily take on gay marriage and acted quickly to put gay marriage on the ballot when they knew they could win in these states. That’s why all gay marriage bans (except California) were passed in the election years of 2004 and 2006. In 2006 the support for gay marriage nationally was at 38% whereas in 2015 support is between 55-60%. So it’s highly likely that if these gay marriage ban amendments were put on ballots today they would not pass, and the only reason Conservatives can claim that the majority of the country voted against gay marriage is because the last vote was a full 9 years ago (outside California).

So the only reason the gay lobby as you put it, is even going after Judicial fiat, is because the anti-gay side unfairly and quickly attempted to end public debate when no real conversation had taken place about gay marriage in 2004. That’s precisely why support for gay marriage has increased by nearly 20%, because Americans watched gays get married in the states/countries where it is legal, they saw there was no problem and the sky was not falling as the Conservative Christians told them it would, and they changed their mind.

The sky is not falling, but there are social problems being caused by same-sex marriage (which is unfairly kept out of the public eye). Besides that, my issue is that out of the 37 states allowing same-sex marriage, 26 of them were forced by judicial activism, while only 3 were enacted through popular vote. While I agree that same-sex marriage support has made impressive gains, this blatant circumvention of the democratic process is unworthy. If the cause has the numbers, have the states to hold votes on the current bans. Those laws are not immune to the legislative process, so, by all means, if the state population wishes to overturn them, then do so.

>Besides that, my issue is that out of the 37 states allowing same-sex marriage, 26 of them were forced by judicial activism, while only 3 were enacted through popular vote.

Just like out of 50 (now) states allowing inter-racial marriage, 16(+1) were forced by judicial activism to do that. California in 1948, and other 16 states in 1967 (Loving v Virginia).

>While I agree that same-sex marriage support has made impressive gains, this blatant circumvention of the democratic process is unworthy.

These gains are more impressive than inter-racial marriage support. According to Gallup polls, in 1967 (when judicial activists of SCOTUS legalized interracial marriage) only about 25% of population approved of it. Approval reached 50% only in 1995. Approval of same sex marriage reached 50% in 2011.

Would you call inter-racial marriage legalization “blatant circumvention of the democratic process”?

Partially, though the way you worded that question is a bit of a cheat.The issue is that the Supreme Court, at one point, was ruling in favor of the bans, so Loving v. Virginia could be seen as necessary, if nothing else, then to fix an issue they caused. I would’ve preferred they had stayed out of it altogether because when they make a ruling, it’s much harder to change it as opposed to a piece of legislation.

And here’s why your question is a bit of a cheat. Over twenty states had removed their own bans prior (Pennsylvania & Massachusetts being the earliest), while two states kept the (unenforceable) bans until they were voted out decades later. So, when it comes to inter-racial legalization, it was the state legislatives who did the most work, not SCOTUS. After reviewing the history of it, I think a solid argument can be made that judicial activism makes change happen quickly, legally, but because it hardens attitudes, it makes actual social change much longer.

As Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, “I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted.”
“People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it, than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”

PS. While I was researching this, I found some interesting information about Loving v. Virginia that parallels in a negative way to the case for same-sex marriage. I wouldn’t advise any proponent of same-sex marriage to use that ruling as justification for their cause for several reasons.

Zeta: That may be true. Or perhaps people are tired of being targeted as “bigot” with all the accompanying backlash if they not only don’t agree, but don’t agree while chanting and waving a rainbow flag. You have only to look at the attempts to destroy the lives of anyone who speaks, however mildly, of the very solid scientific and anecdotal evidence that gay parenting isn’t all rainbows and unicorns. Or look to the businesses that have been closed for the RUMOR of bigotry….not for denying same sex marriage, mind you, but for the RUMOR that they would not serve a gay wedding. For many, it’s not worth the fight. With all the propaganda over “My gay marriage doesn’t affect your life” and the myriad of other social issues to worry about, many are choosing silence over fighting. If gay marriage becomes legal in all 50 states by judicial fiat, it’s a strong indicator that people are silent by coercion but not necessarily by agreement. You need only to look to the countries where threats, “re-education” and personal destruction has been used to uphold a law forced on the people to see how that can end.

As far as the sky not falling….the sky not falling for whom? For people who are losing their life’s work for failing to bow at the altar of gay marriage? For the families that gay lobbyists try to destroy when they don’t toe the line? For the children who are too young and too indoctrinated to know any different?

I really do think you’re overblowing the “bigot” accusations. If you’re simply against gay marriage on religious grounds or whatever grounds then you won’t be labeled a bigot by the vast majority of the community. They’ll tell you you’re wrong, but you won’t be labeled a bigot except by those extreme-left wing fools who view white privilege and police as the biggest threats to society.

Whose life was destroyed? Brendan Eich? I’m sorry that what happened to Eich happened, but the fact is that the Mozilla board gets to choose who runs their company, and they felt that due to his political differences they could not make Eich’s employment work. I happen to think that is utter nonsense and have supported Eich’s freedom to donate wherever he please since he was fired, but they get the right to choose their executives combined with the number of gays who have lost their job (and continue to lose their jobs) due to sheer bigotry make it hard for me to shed too many tears for anti-gay people losing jobs.

Gay marriage will only affect your business if A. You operate a wedding-related business and B. You refuse to operate these services for gays. And this has nothing to do with homosexuality or gay rights, since I cannot discriminate against Christians if I wanted to since Christianity (and all religion) is protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So if your notion of gays being fascist is that they are requesting the same protection already given to christians and blacks and women, then I reject your premises. This is about public accommodation, not homosexuality.

So you can act like this group of people losing money or jobs over gay marriage is big, but in reality it’s like 5 or 6 in 11 years, and in most of these cases the provider was in violation of state law. If they wish to operate their Christian business then they should check state law to see what that means, and they did not.

Polls about social issues, and just about anything else, are notoriously untrustworthy (wrong). How the question is phrased, and to whom it is asked, makes all the difference in the world for poll outcomes-so, let’s just stick to the realities- which are far harder to distort than polls. The fact is that the gay lobby for same sex marriage (here is where I recognize that not all homosexuals are SSM supporters) feared losing their battle when permitting the representative political process to play out, so, taking their cues from their benefactors and fellow/brethren radical anarchists similarly short-circuiting the representative system via Executive Orders and Judicial Activism/Fiat, they decided to completely override/ignore the public’s rejection of this proposal, nine years ago and/or today, to undertake what amounts to a complete undoing of the very institution that formed the backbone of western civilization. The family unit is the smallest unit of ‘government’ and ‘society’, so, when a dictate is imposed upon the people to change it, rather than have a natural evolution, borne of a need that society recognizes and accepts-or even embraces, you have disruptions to the family, and society overall that can not be defined, nor ameliorated.

We don’t know what the outcome for a free society will be as a result of this highly engineered attack on marriage, and thus, the family, since it would likely take a generation, at a minimum, to make any worthwhile observations.

The radical-anarchist lobby, which has infiltrated the gay community as well as other communities who are told they have a grievance against Western Civilization, was very astute in it’s multifaceted campaigns against western values, including our ethical and moral compass, as well as completing the total conversion of an education system that produces good little anarchist soldiers, but, not very good students, intellects or citizens; and last, but not least, by turning a democratically aligned republic into a huge dictatorial nanny-state.

Quite simply, you were used for quite nefarious reasons. Your community’s short-sightedness and selfishness may have done as much to facilitate the loss of all our freedoms as quickly as if Stalin or Mao had taken us by force.

FyVa ProLd, What a wonderful set of ideas. I’ll have to see if I can work them in.

In the mean time maybe you can explain to me what you mean by marriage equality. Words are discriminatory by nature. If that weren’t so then we wouldn’t actually be able to have a conversation. Every word after the definition of marriage narrows down what the meaning of marriage is. Every word that is removed from the definition would then make marriage less discriminatory. Removing gender from the definition still leaves a bunch of people excluded that think their version of relationships should be recognized by the state as a marriage. Are you going to discriminate against them by telling them that their ideas aren’t acceptable? The only way to remove all discrimination from marriage would be to remove all the words behind the definition. Of course doing so would remove marriage completely. This is actually what the sex radicals want for our country. Is that what you are?

Yes, they left the women in the rubble–no food, no water. And made sure they got their “product”. One cholera out break and these men will loose their breeding stock and have to start from scratch. Yes LGBT are such humanitarians . Disgusting takes on a new dimension when the reality of gay parenting is on the table. Love and in this case women’s deaths make a family–

all but 2 of those babies were bought by gay men. In fact the baby selling company that uses those women as reproductive slaves is owned by 2 gay men as are most of the other companies as well. The misogyny of the gay male has reached a new height. The utter pathological nature of the abuse of women and children for profit has not gone unnoticed by feminists and leaders in the 3rd world. And now the whole narrative is falling apart–human rights violations are not something that wins the hearts of the masses.

You’re completely irrational and seriously not worthy of debating. Your disdain for surrogacy is ridiculous. These women mostly choose to be surrogates, and I agree that the international surrogacy industry is rife with corruption and misogyny but it certainly it is not an inherently immoral practice. If these women wish to enter an economic arrangement to birth a child then I don’t see why they shouldn’t if there is an oversight body that ensures proper medical care and that the contracts are honored. I understand you think we should only have babies the same way we have been since the dawn of time, but there are plenty of heterosexual couples who cannot conceive naturally, why should they be forbidden from having a biological child simply because the natural way failed them? We have the medicine and technology, why not use it?

And again, you seem to be completely and totally unaware of the demographics of surrogacy use since you irrationally blame only gay men. You’re nuts in my opinion.

Zeta there is nothing to debate. Gay men have no right to profit from and use poor women as breeders. That is pretty much the definition of misogyny. Children have a right to a mother and a father. It is just like you can’t own slaves, you can’t sell people. These are not open to debate. When something sinks in morally reprehensible there is no debate. Who knows maybe it will catch on and be all the rage–The last group that had breeding programs also thought they were the wave of the future sweeping the world. Yes selling humans, slavery is an economic arraignment but it not family or love. It is an example of how callous and self-centered the gay male is. Deluded–he wants a baby. Unless people describe . There is no glossing this over. Lopez is correct it slavery not parenthood and they have captives. It is going to suck to be them an read and hear in the future about what kind of monsters their “parents” are. I suspect they will know the truth before they read or hear about it. Yes some hetersexual couples use it. But only a tiny fraction of them are infertile and there is not a single gay couple that can reproduce. So the deflection does not make gay men any less guilty of collective massive human rights violations against women and children.

Poverty and starvation, lack of medical and men forcing women is not choice. The Gay men have a choice and they go out of their way to prey on poor women and make huge profits . They get on air planes to travel the world looking for . That is a choice .I hope they wind up in a jail and rot.
Gay men are not forbidden from having a child. If Gayness is such a misery for them maybe they have a problem–Gay is normal remember? And men do not have babies remember? Are you claiming that gay is is some kind of mental sickness and the world has to provide these men other peoples children so their lives are not a misery. How many people need loose their lives and freedom and children so gay men feel happy? I am not sure you want to push that line of thought. It could back fire in obvious ways. That you defend this is morally reprehensible–Yes gay men are so great that women world wide are risking their lives for them. Gay men are not infertile women–they are men. When men can get pregnant they are free to have babies. As it stands now they are repugnant and human traffickers, not parents. Yes I am so old fashioned that I can just get with the program and accept new way babies are made–in women’s bodies.

You’re absolutely correct, gay men do not have the right to profit from and use women. Good thing they don’t do that. Are you actually Robert Lopez? Because the only idiot I’ve ever seen who actually believes this “gay adoption = slavery” and gays are misogynist and surrogacy is only the fault of gays UTTER NONSENSE is Bobby “the fat bigot” Lopez. I’m not going to argue with an ideologue who has no interest in rationality, logic or evidence. Your claims that surrogacy is the fault of gays are spurious at best, your utter inability to blame anyone for the horrors of surrogacy other than gay men is homophobic and ridiculous and there is truly no point for me to engage in debating your points as I believe you have not made a coherent one.

I think children should be raised by their biological parents as well. But the world’s not a perfect place and that’s why we have orphanages and kids who need parents and homes and why we allow for adoption. When the child is up for adoption, they’ve lost their parents through ABSOLUTELY NO FAULT of the gays or the straights who adopt them. You simply think only heterosexuals should be able to adopt and the data does not support that. Gays are a vital source of adoptive parents in this country and without them there would be more at-risk youth in orphanages and group homes.

But you want to sit there and not only claim that raising a child is selfish of the gays (have you ever raised a child? Do you think it’s selfish and easy to do? It’s about the most selfless thing you can do) and they steal children and they’re evil. Your hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is completely uncalled for and you cannot and have not shown any distinction between why straight adoption/surrogacy is OK but when gays utilize these services it becomes evil. That’s perfectly fine, but don’t expect anyone to take your horseshit seriously

History will look upon people like you with an unkind eye. And I cannot wait for that day

Fundamentally, I don’t agree. Where we do connect is a healthy respect for another person’s opinion. I’ve never seen a blog like yours before. Well, that’s not entirely true, I see political blogs on the left that claim to want to understand the flip side, but there’s always the eight hundred pound elephant in the room. It whispers:
but you’re all stupid.
I like what you’ve done here. No elephant.

Hey Naptime! Welcome and thanks for commenting. I have the best, like THE BEST, supporters. I don’t have all the answers and even if I did I don’t have time to answer every objection. But I watch and learn from those who know more than me as they patiently engage and elevate what to often can devolve into the personal attacks and red herrings. I don’t know if anyone has changed their minds, but there’s some pretty good discussion to be had. Stop by anytime. 🙂

Will do. I feel the same way; it’s important to listen to others with respect and an open mind in order to grow as a human being. It saddens me when perfectly good discussions devolve into personal attacks, and although this is a very important and personal issue to me I see no need to call names like school children.

One more thing, where do you stand on interracial marriage? all the arguments waged against SSM are principly the same arguments people used during that (very) heated debate. The bible has been used to justify all sorts of ideas that we once held dear, yet now realize were wrong and bigoted, how is the discussion over same sex marriage different?

I notice arguments that appeal to authority, including “science.” To pull back the curtain a bit, there are no scientific conclusions to be drawn from any of the studies on homosexuality and child rearing cited. Techno-science is a method, not an oracle. With apologies to those who make their living trying to match the scientific method to broad, cultural human behaviors, it doesn’t always fit. The scientific method requires objective observer(s) and, until we teach robots to do science, that is not happening for topics like SSM that revolve around human sexuality, human childhood, motherhood, human politics, and emotionally-invested funding agencies or university departments with financial conflicts-of-interests on all sides. It also requires controlling the non-experimental variables—we don’t even know how to count the variables of a human upbringing, let alone control them. It also requires a valid quantitative model if one wants to extrapolate conclusions. Do you really think a human being, the ultimate social animal on Earth, is a statistical “independent event” in her culture growing up? Can you ethically do the necessary experiment to separate twins at birth and raise them with all the important environmental variables controlled for 15-20 years except the parent’s sexual lifestyle? Huh? So the meaningless application of words like “evidence” or “scientific” or Gaussian statistics and p values is window dressing in the SSM discussion. The sort of literature that “the bigot” nicely covered in her April entry, like the comparable studies claiming to show that SSM “does no harm,” has value for communication and expression but it is neither scientific nor objective.

Well, Katy…I shared this on my Facebook wall. 81 comments later, and I am exhausted. It seems I have hurt (unintentionally) several gay family members and upset many others, including my own mother. I have been called a judgmental hypocrite who espouses hatred by promoting a blog that is lobbying to make illegal any family structure that is not led by a married man and woman. For the record, I didn’t get that from your blog, your links, your studies, your videos, or your chats, so I don’t know if my family members are correct there…. It seems to me you are advocating children’s natural rights to their natural parents. It seems to me you are giving many children a voice they need. I am a divorced, single working mother whose unbelievably gorgeous, talented and sweet children tell her all they time they want their mommy and daddy back together. It’s been nine years since the divorce…my children are 12 and 10 years old, and they still tell me all the time how this is their biggest wish, hope and prayer in life.

Here’s what I know. My kids are not wrong to want their mother and father back together. My kids, plus a huge conviction by the Holy Spirit, confirm everything you have said about children’s rights. I have given it all to the cross and I am not ashamed. But I am also not threatened or offended by the truth. I did my march today with you, Katy, and I am so thankful. In HIM, my source and strength.

Welcome welcome welcome. Friend, I HAVE BEEN THERE! (Who am I kidding, I *live” there. ;)) My very first FB mention that I supported traditional marriage resulted in 170 comments. I lost three friends immediately. That was about 6 months before I started blogging. I only spoke up because a friend shared an “article” that “proved” that conservatives (especially Christians), along with racists, had lower IQs and that was the reason for their “bigotry.” So I “came out” against gay marriage because I could not approve (which is what my vote entails) of promoting a family structure which deprived a child of their mother or father. I made no mention of my mom, but several friends knew not only my background but our close relationship so they were stunned. Prior to the FB reveal, I was terrified (not an understatement) of someone calling me a bigot or anti-gay. The term bigot is meant to completely shut down dialogue, and for the most part of my adult life, that was a successful tactic. I have since come to see the term as almost laughable, though I still can barely tell people the name of my blog full-voice. Laughable especially because it’s brandied about when the emotionalism often employed by the other side runs up against reason and social science. I think that most people won’t touch the subject because they fear the backlash, I know that’s how I felt for years. Good work stepping out, friend. Let me know if I can point you to any resources which may help on that thread.

I started blogging because I thought I was the only child with a gay parent who felt the way I do. (And because I was fed up with the religious arguments and the religious liberty focus.) Then I found others who thought they were the only ones. Then others who thought they were alone found me. There are many more who have contacted me who share my view but who do not speak publicly because their relationship with their parent is tenuous, or mainly, they just don’t want the abuse that can go along with being honest.

What you have shared about your children is probably one of the most universal of all human longings: to be known and loved by one’s mother and father, and to see them loving each other. Divorce hurts everyone, and I’m so sorry for the position that you and your children are in. I hope you have had wise, compassionate, and supportive friends right by your side the whole time. Thank you for sharing your story with us. Please don’t be a stranger.

Also, briefly, there are all kinds of reasons why a child would be raised by someone who is not their mother or father. Brokenness finds us and it finds children. And we must do all we can to get in and do life with kids who have lost their mother and/or father for any reason. But marriage policy is about *promoting* one kind of relationship – heterosexual unions – because government should encourage adults to stay connected and take responsibility for the children that such a union often creates. Other consensual adult relationship are permitted, but only one should be promoted- the one that protects children’s right and well-being. That’s a far cry from making non mother-father homes *illegal*. Sometimes children need to be separated from one of both parents, but those situations should be arduous and rare. We should not casually sever a child’s relationship with a parent for the sake of adult desire. The onus must always be on adults to conform to the needs of kids.

Wow, Katy. Thank you so much for your response. Thank you for explaining your position so clearly. I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said. My kids confirm everything you’ve said. Beyond all of the backlash on FB that really left me feeling horrible, I think the basic argument back to me was that your position is unconstitutional – in that it is attempting to restrict one’s right to live their lives and have the family they choose. On the other hand, they argue that broadening the definition of family doesn’t infringe on my rights, so why do I have to take it any further? Immediately, I think: but what about the children’s rights? And what if the children’s rights directly conflict with yours? Your position Katy, to me, therefore isn’t for restricting any person’s rights; rather, for recognizing children’s rights and asking that all adults be willing to sacrifice their own for the kids, on this very important issue. This is what I am taking from your position, which I find unique, commendable, and very loving indeed. No hate here.

One thing that occurred to me….my daughter was 1 when her father and I split up. She was still a baby. She’s never known anything but two households and her dad and I living apart. And yet, when asked at age 10, she says nothing would make her happier than her daddy and I back together **choking back tears**. If I could post a picture, I’d show you the Mother’s Day collage that my kids made for me. There are a bunch of written ‘thank you’ notes. Right in the middle, among the beautiful “Thank you mom for loving me”, and “You are a polished sword in a sea of rusty daggers” (that was my 12 year old son), is my daughter’s writing “Mom, I love you because you married Dad. Thank you for marrying Daddy”. Remember how she was a baby when we split up? I don’t think there could be more powerful testimony for your arguments for what kids want. I’ll also say this – my son heard me listening to your Alliance Defending Freedom youtube videos. I didn’t know he was listening, but he came out to the living room and asked “Who is that lady? I really like her. She’s completely right…especially the part about watching dads love their moms….she’s REALLY right about that”. Katy, he was THREE when we split up. He’s NEVER seen his dad love me! I had to just hug him and tell him he deserves to have that and he deserves better than what his dad and I have given him. And cling to Jesus more than ever.

So, I am sure there are many other kids who agree with you….but let me just add that my two completely agree and we, our little family, are totally on board. We all will be following you and watching what God does through your message – starting with giving my son some hope that someone else understands his innermost wants and needs. Thank you so much, again.

P.S. – thank you for showing me love right now, I am feeling pretty rejected by my natural family. I do have a very strong network of Christ-loving friends where I live, so God’s got me covered there. Thank you for asking!

Single Mom, You are not alone. It was very brave of you to share what you did. Way to go. Stories are very powerful in reaching the hearts of people. I would encourage you to go to this website where they collect these stories and share yours.

As Christians we don’t have to fear the truth. I like to tell people that the first thing that we have to admit to become a Christian is that we have been wrong, we are not omniscient and that we are to pursue the truth. We should be charitable to our opponents and try not to mischaracterize them but really ask questions to understand their view. You don’t have to know all the answers, nobody does, and this is what keeps a lot of Christians from even engaging. Just ask questions and if they ask you something and you don’t know the answer just ask them, “I’m not sure about that. Would it be OK if I take some time to think about what you’ve offered and get back to you?” While there are difficult questions that have to be answered there are also good answers.

When these folks are aguing for broadening the family you might ask “What principles do you use in guiding you to understanding what a family is?” When they say that it doesn’t infringe on your rights you can ask “Are you aware that under the genderless marriage law the state now takes on the task of assigning parenthood rather than simply recognizing a biological reality. Doesn’t that threaten every natural parent’s rights?” You are right on with your questions about childrens rights and you might also point out the the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that a child has a right to a relationship with their bio mother and father. The whole marriage debate is completely focussed on the adults and their desires and ignores the child. You might ask them “What is the purpose of marriage?” and if the children are not involved in their definition you could ask “Why does the state need to be involved?” As for rights you are no doubt familiar with the Declaration of Independance which says “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are established and that when they become destructive of these ends it is the rights of the people to alter or abolish them.” They are actually relying on this right to start the revolution in the first place. Under our constitution all people have the same rights in the same way.

Welcome! It’s always nice to hear another reasoned opinion. Sorry that you’ve gone through so much struggle just with a single post. But hang in there, and know you’re not alone! (As Askme demonstrated quite thoroughly)

Praise the Lord, this has provided much-needed relief for me. It can be so easy to doubt when it seems the world is throwing itself at you. But I KNOW this is right. My kids show me all the time, this is right. And so this is a relief in also a huge, life-changing way.

Please inform your FB community that you are simply a naturalist/’environmentalist”/’evolutionist”, and since you have not witnessed any other natural family structure but that of the male-female bond, the only union which leads to the propagation of offspring, which are then reared by that same male and female family bond, you must simply defer to the facts, as observable, of the matter.

Tell them your position is not emotional or ideological- as is theirs, and that you rely on the facts inherent in/of nature, as revealed to us through the disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics, to draw your conclusions.

Then, tell them if they have any issues regarding “bigotry” (please tell them to re-familiarize themselves with the actual definition of that word) -from which the ‘hatred’ mantra is derived, to take it up with nature.

You might also note for them that those species that commit to monogamous pair-bonding are always without exception opposite sex, and if one of the parents are lost to the family, the survival of the offspring is significantly diminished. Then, make sure they are aware that the male parent fulfills an entirely different role in the family than does the female parent in rearing and fledging/weaning offspring. As a matter of fact, males and females of any species evolved to specifically attract the opposite sex (to maximize their likelihood of producing progeny), and to display traits to each other that serve to increase the likelihood of successfully producing and rearing/raising fit offspring.

As soon as nature produces a better (more fit) process for ensuring the survival of species, and therefore, those species communities/populations/societies, humanity will readily note it and gladly follow suit.

That’s great! I was also really moved by Katy’s ADF video where she discusses the response she had for two men who said “goodbye” to the mother of their child. Every child is the product of a female mother and a male father. By trying to deny or change those roles, we are denying a part of the child.

Good for you. Your voice has a right to be heard as does every voice…pro-this or pro-that. I’m sorry for the backlash….gay marriage remains controversial a nd therefore you can expect the backlash to be vicious, personal and primarily comprised of attacks on your character, intelligence, etc. It really does, as AskMe said previously, become pretty cliche after awhile.

I hope that, as the Holy Spirit guided you to AskMe’s blog, others like it and the friends you will find there will give you comfort and support.

So nice to meet you, Tisha. All of you. Thank you. One of the things my family kept throwing at me was the concept of equality. The great thing about this blog is that it extends equality to ALL, especially the “least” of us who have no political “voice” – our kids, born and unborn. I have a personal belief that full equality isn’t possible in a nation where an entire population of people aren’t even considered people and are legally butchered by the millions every year. I long for the narrative and reasoning behind the pro-choice movement to change, and I know that if it did, it would go hand in had with the narrative behind protection of children’s rights.

It should be clear from the Declaration’s rights of all men that life is protected by government from the day of conception to natural death. If you are looking for a good pro life training site check out Scott Klusendorf’s site at http://prolifetraining.com/.

Single Mom- the equality argument has ‘no legs’, as they say. Our Constitution ensures equal access to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness (unless you’re an unborn baby); it does not guarantee equal outcomes. When homosexuals decided to live the ‘gay life’, by their own choice of behavior, they chose not to participate in the institutions created specifically (by nature and by society) for heterosexuals, or, ~98% of the population, if you prefer. Only the homosexuals themselves denied themselves the access to those institutions, that which are already known to have formed the backbone of civilized society.

If a woman, or a couple cannot bear their own biological child, is it incumbent upon society to provide one for them? No. Does the US Constitution guarantee that every whim or desire we have, that we define as happiness, shall be permitted or provided by the government? No. It only guarantees equal access to its citizens to pursue those things. Because society saw fit to provide tax incentives or shelters for those things that have been deemed good for society, does not mean others are excluded from pursuing, through legislation, those things that may benefit other segments of society. Minority populations have protected class protections and access to government grants and other funds that majority population citizens do not have- is that equal? Can I demand that a gay bar change its environment to accommodate Quaker family patronage? No. Can I demand that a gay baker service a rabid anti-gay skinhead convention? No. Can I get the same tax breaks if I am childless vs. a family with 8 children? No. There is nothing a heterosexual married couple gets, via a representative government, through marriage that a homosexual couple can’t get through a civil union and/or other legal means. The radical-anarchist segment of the gay lobby that is pursuing the SCOTUS to redefine marriage isn’t as interested in gaining ‘equality’ as they are interested in disassembling western civilization, which is based upon Judeo-Christian philosophy, and theology. That is why about 99% of the debate with these radicals deteriorates into diatribes against Christians and Conservatives. This isn’t a battle for equality, this is a battle designed to destroy our freedoms and replace our democracy with a dictatorial, behemoth government that will crush our Constitution (which is currently in progress).

Then, again, back to nature. Nature makes no guarantee of equality; it simply says: here you are, here are the rules, and here is your playing field, go forth, compete, and reproduce, successfully. Your only reward will be seeing your offspring do so, similarly.

Since it is language, and how it is used, or abused, that is defining this debate, it is a good exercise to revisit some of those words, that do have meaning, used in this debate.

1. 1. Marriage: Latin derivative MATRIMONIUM. By this word is understood the inheritance descending to a man, ex parti matris.
2. Among the Romans this word was employed to signify marriage; and it was so called because this conjunction was made with the design that the wife should become a mother
(http://legal-ictionary.thefreedictionary.com/).

Leaving politics, religion and ideology, overall, aside- not one proponent of SSM has been able to explain how redefining marriage from the pre-religion institution, that which evolved from the natural condition of monogamy as practiced by opposite sex individuals, only, to endure the greatest fitness of the species, to some ‘other thing’ is going to better serve the natural institution of marriage, the natural and normal/normative family, and the natural and normative community or society.

Asking for thoughtful discussion and debate on redefining nature is not an unreasonable belief. Demanding that the normative society change the very meaning of the ‘thing’ to assuage the unreasonable beliefs being practiced by a deviant subclass of the normative society is bigotry.

To be clear: it isn’t because it just happens to be homosexuals (another social construct not found in nature) demanding this institution be changed, it is because the institution, as evolved and successfully practiced by homo sapiens for millennia, is being deconstructed by anyone (could have easily been heterosexuals demanding redefinition to accommodate polyandry or incest) from the top down (not via a beneficial social evolution/revolution), so the “you’re just a bigot” argument and defense of your proposal is baseless, by definition.

Let’s suppose another minority class in the US demanded that Sharia Law replace the US Constitution, using your same First Amendment argument (http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/americas-muslim-population-2030/). Already, in some states (Illinois), Muslims are at/over 2% of the population. Should they similarly use the same top-down process for forcing Sharia Law onto that states citizenry? Wouldn’t you want a say, via your legislature (democratically-elected representation), what laws your state (or country) should adopt? If you oppose Sharia Law being imposed upon you this way, are you a bigot- perhaps an “Islamophobe”?

Replace your desires with any (statistically-insignificant) minority classes ‘desires’ (be sure to include who your community considers the most undesirable members) and then try to imagine what our nation would become if your hi-jacking of the Constitution via ideological means were to become the means by which we govern our nation.

Because the ‘gay lifestyle’ (whatever it is today, as opposed to past decades) is rooted in the individual, in the here and now, is not rooted in nature or norms, is inherently selfish, the fitness of the species and future generations is not factored into their analyses (or their behavior). The health of any nation, or species is determined by its ability to reproduce itself to ensure sustainability. Persons who practice obligate homosexuality (a behavior) are not, by definition, oriented toward ensuring the health of the species or the community/population/society.

“My Kingdom for a Horse”- a horse being any SSM proponent that can synthesize a logical (no more emotional responses, please) argument in support of SSM that might convince the loyal opposition of why the pros of changing the definition of marriage outweigh the cons.

Remember this too, if we can, nilly-willy, compel the state to change the definition of marriage, so, too, can we change the definition of all words, including Liberty, Happiness and Life.

There is no such thing as the “natural institution of marriage”. Marriage is not part of nature. Humans are the only species that legally “marry” each other.

“Deviant” : differing from a norm
So what? How is that justification to exclude gay citizens from creating a legal kinship with each other? Jewish people only represent about 2% of society. They differ from the norm, so they shouldn’t be able to marry, right? Interracial couples were (and are) deviant, which explains why 90% of the populace didn’t want them to marry in 1960.

“Because the ‘gay lifestyle’ is rooted in the individual, in the here and now, is not rooted in nature or norms, is inherently selfish…”

What a patently offensive statement. To say it’s bullshit would be a vast understatement. Homosexuality IS rooted in nature. Over 1,500 animal species exhibit homosexual behavior. If homosexuality didn’t serve a purpose, it would have been eliminated eons ago through natural selection. It probably exists to control overpopulation; and considering that there are over 7 billion people on the planet, there don’t seem to be enough homosexuals. Yet here you are blathering on about repopulating the species. What that has to do with marriage is anyone’s guess. You don’t have to be married to procreate, and you don’t have to procreate in order to get married. Just out of curiosity, when a straight couple gets married and never has children (like the four marriages of Rush Limbaugh), is that inherently selfish too? If so, why are non-procreative straight couples allowed to marry?

“Remember this too, if we can, nilly-willy, compel the state to change the definition of marriage, so, too, can we change the definition of all words, including Liberty, Happiness and Life.”

So gay Americans aren’t entitled to liberty, happiness and life… just like straight citizens? If anyone is being selfish here, that would be you. How exactly does providing those things to gay citizens negatively impact your liberty, happiness and life? Here’s a clue: It doesn’t.

Jae has this amazing way of taking the stance that “I deserve more rights than you but you’re the one being selfish and emotional” and trying to honestly debate with it. I find it rather ineffective. Oh and he’ll tell you he’s not a bigot and he supports gay rights but then he says things like “gays are rooted in the individual” as if gay relationships aren’t really relationships.

Actually, to be more accurate “Jae has this amazing way of supporting our oppositions position that marriage is a naturally-evolved ‘institution’ (in human terms) that is perfectly/optimally suited for the sustenance and continued fitness of the human species”.

“Rights”, “benefits, “privileges” are all human social constructs irrelevant in nature. Those are the terms you use in support of your argument.

I am against any ‘marriage’ that isn’t One Male and One Female, only (as determined by nature), so that eliminates the ‘bigotry’ label, and the ‘gay’ lifestyle is rooted in the individual since it is not naturally ordered toward procreation- and all the sacrifices of oneself and the bonded male-female union that must occur for continued evolutionary success. I use the term “selfish”, as previously documented here at ATB, as a biological term (look it up yourself, I am not required to give you a remedial education in order to debate you).

You only have managed to document, quite clearly, how you and your co-conspirators/lobbyists distort your oppositions views, here in full view for all to observe, because your only defense for your illogical/irrational (unnatural) support for SSM is to attempt to challenge your oppositions argument by totally distorting and misrepresenting it, or by undertaking the uniquely human and despicable behavior of identity ideology/personal attacks. Here’s a cue: instead of expending all of your discretionary energy (again, another biological term) on misrepresenting your oppositions argument or undertaking personal attacks, why not just build a better defense of your own very weak position?

Rights, benefits and privileges are what is granted by the federal government to marital unions. Those are the only people and the only institution I am attempting to sway, I do not care what your religion or what you think “rights” are or where they come from.

“the gay lifestyle is rooted in the individual since it is not naturally ordered toward procreation”
— So if you’re not procreating then you’re selfish? I would say the countless heterosexuals who are irresponsibly spitting out children they can’t pay for are far more selfish. We do not need every member of our society to procreate and having members of our society who choose not to procreate and choose to adopt (which gays do en masse) is the height of unselfishness. It’s both insulting and incorrect to say that gays are inherently selfish or “rooted in the individual” (a nice PC way of saying “selfish).

You should give yourself the remedial education first, look up things like “slippery slope fallacy” and “Equal Protection Clause.”

I’m not distorting anything. I have very accurately reflected the anti-gay views you have espoused. Your arguments are not based on logic or rationality but on your views of what “nature” instructs (there are plenty of examples of homosexual behavior in nature) and your emotion-fueled anti-gay animus. I have never once attacked you, I am merely characterizing your argument as I see fit.

lol, I’m dishonest? Please, if you say you’re done with me, stop replying to me. That would be great.

You said “I do not care what your religion or what you think “rights” are or where they come from.”

Maybe I’m mistaken here and you can straighten me out but it sounds like you are saying it doesn’t matter where rights come from. But then how would you come here and try to make a logical appeal to us to acknowledge your rights. Wouldn’t that indicate that because you are trying to justify them that justification in itself entails showing that they come from somewhere? If rights don’t come from somewhere then wouldn’t that mean that there really are no such things as rights? They are simply human constructs or conventions. Do you believe or reject our founders belief that rights come from God and are to be recognized and protected by government? If you reject that belief then would you please take time to explain to us where they come from so we can evaluate your claims?

I realize that these are very emotional issues for all of us so I want to let you know that I appreciate you taking time to respond.

SudanPhil- just as was the case with Butters- who could not manage to find the way back to thank you for your help, ZZ wont be back to respond to your logical query because the only logical answer would be to agree with your assertions regarding ‘rights’, but, mostly because ZZ is too busy over at “About” spewing some of that ‘gay’ love, and lots of other irrational and hateful emotions, at the SSM opposition. The ZZ’s, Butter’s, David’s and Doc’s of the SSM gay lobby are incapable of formulating logical arguments in defense of their position, so, the only recourse they ever have is engaging in the nasty business of identity politics and assassination.

The game that I like to play with the identity ideologues is called the “Martian Visit” game. It goes like this:

“A Martian encounters humanity for the first time and seeks critical information from you. The Martian only has a very short time to collect the most valuable information needed to ensure the continued existence of earth’s inhabitants, so, you must summarize who and what you are within the context of your universe in one minute. What will you tell the Martian?”

The majority of the world population would respond as follows:

” I am a living thing- called a human being. Humans, which are only one of millions of other different living beings called species inhabiting the earth, are comprised of two forms called genders, one male and one female that must reproduce sexually to produce offspring in order to ensure the existence of the species. All species require air, food and water – which is provided by the earth- to live. Additionally, Humans, as the epitome of all species, are the only species that require the free exercise of their will utilizing reason which dictates their unique intellect, such that it is ordered toward the survival of their species ”

A minority of the world population comprised of those who are disordered (there are hundreds of disorders characterized in human behavior) would respond to the Martian quite differently. That is because the disordered personalities have elevated their wants above our species biological needs, by definition.

Every other distinguishing characteristic- such as race, religion, ethnicity/nation of origin, political ideology, social status or any other non life-sustaining behavior of this particular, or any human being, is immaterial to the Martian, and immaterial to human existence, or progress. The rights secured for us in the US Constitution are not derived by Man, but are dictated by Mans needs. If you’re an atheist, you may call your god “nature”. If you’re a believer in the Judeo-Christian or Muslim deity, you may refer to God (or Allah). It doesn’t matter from where you believe these human rights originate, it only matters that they are indisputably required for Man to thrive. It happens to be true, as evidenced by any unbiased review of human history, that western civilization, which is based in Judeo-Christian philosophy and theology, has provided Man, as a species, the greatest advantage for success, by every metric, to date.

Yesterday, some disordered ‘reporter’ kept repeating the same inane question about ‘gay rights’ to a Republican presidential candidate. While the ordered world is focused on genocide and other aggression in the middle east, Russian and Chinese aggression, ideologically-manufactured (astroturf) homeland social unrest leading to anarchy, worldwide economic instability and so many more threats to our freedoms and for some, their very existence, this unknown reporter, representing one disordered minority, finally gets a chance to interview a leading presidential candidate, the possible future leader of the free world, at one of the most dangerous times in world history – and, he peppers him about ‘gay rights’.

I wonder how this disordered reporter, a obvious identity ideologue, would have summed up humanity for our Martian visitor in his one minute?

Identity ideologues, in their haste to disorder, or distort nature, only have one arrow in their quiver- it is the quiver of personal destruction over rational, logical (reason=intellect) debate. It is the same ‘one note song’ sung by Saul Alinsky in his manifesto called “Rules for Radicals”. The ‘gay’ lobby, along with the rest of their radical leftist cronies, have replaced all knowledge about humanity and nature with this irrational manifesto – a very distorted and disordered ‘dusty tome’ version of their own “bible”.

As to the claim that LGBT are the new civil rights. Historicaly speaking gay rights proceed Civil Rights and are not an American invention. Here is an except by from the very gay rights Huffington Post that gives the history of gay rights. I think the writer is gay–and he is honest. Not civil rights its much more sinister.

“He (Ernst Rohm head of the Nazi SA) believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute… He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA.” They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning “hysterical women of both sexes”, in reference to feminine gay men. This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country’s first gay magazine. You could call it ‘Queer as Volk’: they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.
Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers – who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA – Hitler and Rohm’s underground army – was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, “I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933… I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay.”

Rohm is venerated on the Homo-Nazi sites that have bred on the internet like germs in a wound. They have names like Gays Against Semitism (with the charming acronym GAS), and the Aryan Resistance Corps (ARC). Their Rohmite philosophy is simple: while white men are superior to other races, gay men are “the masters of the Master Race”. They alone are endowed with the “capacity for pure male bonding” and the “superior intellect” that is needed for “a fascist revolution.” The ARC even organises holiday “get-togethers” for its members where “you can relax amongst the company of our fellow white brothers.” So it’s fairly easy to establish that gay people are not inoculated from fascism. They have often been at its heart. This begs the bigger question: why? How did gay people – so often victims of oppression and hate – become integral to the most hateful and evil political movement of all? Is it just an extreme form of self-harm, the political equivalent to the gay kids who slash their own arms to ribbons out of self-hate? Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that “all gay porn today is implictly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it’s all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures.” He has tried to explore the relationship between homosexuality and fascism in his movies, beginning with ‘No Skin Off My Ass’ in 1991. In his disturbing 1999 film “Skin Flick’, a bourgeois gay couple – one black, one white – are sexually terrorised by a gang of gay skinheads who beat off to ‘Mein Kampf’ and beat up ‘femmes’. He implies that bourgeois gay norms quickly break down to reveal a fascist lurking underneath; the movie ends with the black character being raped in front of his half-aroused white lover, as the racist gang chant, “Fuck the monkey.” I decided to track down some gay fascists and ask them directly. Wyatt Powers, director of the ARC, says, “I always knew in my heart racist and gay were both morally right. I don’t see any conflict between them. It’s only the Jew-owned gay press that tries to convince us that racialism is the same thing as homophobia. You can be an extreme nationalist and gay without any contradiction at all.” One comment board on a gay racist website goes even further into racist lunacy. One gay man from Ohio says, “Even if you are gay and white, or retarded and white, YOU ARE WHITE, BOTTOM LINE! Instead of letting the white race go extinct because of worthless races such as the Africans or Mexicans popping out literally millions of babies a day, we have to fight this fucked up shit they are doing. They are raping our country.”

If you look at the bottom of each email you receive it says “Unsubscribe from all follow-up comments.” I would encourage you to keep in the conversation and contribute and where you think people are wrong in their thinking gently point it out. We all have emotional attachments to what we believe and I know I get irritated when I see people attacking what I believe. My emotions don’t make what I believe to be true.

My standard response to people like you is that you have no business telling other people how to live their lives. This applies whether it concerns same sex marriage, abortion, contraception, death with dignity, invitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, etc.

You people are failing to respect boundaries. You should live your own life according to your own standards and let the rest of us (assuming we are not engaging in criminal activities) live our lives by our standards. Beyond that, there really is nothing to discuss. MYOB.

May I ask you, considering your belief system, why you would come on this website and tell people how to live their lives? Maybe while you are at it you could assist your colleagues here and tell us where rights come from? Like the right of abortion. Does that come from God as our founders claimed all natural rights did?

“Maybe while you are at it you could assist your colleagues here and tell us where rights come from?”

SudanPhil,

What rights any of us have, including my right to state my disagreement with the author, depends on who you ask. Some see our rights as coming from a deity and interpreted for us by religious leaders. I believe our rights just exist. They don’t come from anyone. They just are. My comment remains the same. Religious people have no right telling the rest of us how to live our lives. They do not represent some kind of universal divine authority. They just think they do. It is very presumptuous on their part.

Your views are just as religious as anybody else’s and please don’t pretend otherwise unless you are willing to say that your views don’t represent what you think is ultimately true and real.

Rights just are? Hmmm. Maybe you can help me with that. A material universe is all there is right? And from that material universe we get immaterial things like rights? If the material universe is all there is there are no such things as rights. By your own standard you have no right to come here and tell us how we should live our lives so why are you doing that?

The view you articulate is not our founders view of rights. That is the heritage that has been passed down to us and you have been a beneficiary of their rights. If you happened to have grown up elsewhere you would have a different heritage and different rights. The founders believed and staked their names to the view that ” all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” So you are asking us to replace the foundation that they believed and and build a different system based on your understanding?

Does anyone simply get to declare what rights are and then we can go to the government and have them recognize those? I claim the right to XYZ and it just is? And you call me presumptuous? Exactly how are religious people telling you to live your life in a way that you somehow have to listen to? Either immaterial things such as rights actually exist (the Christian view) or they don’t, in which case no one has them. I find it perplexing that you would declare to us that immaterial entities do not exist and then in the next breath declare that they just exist. There would seem to be a logical problem with your view.

While the western world disassembles natural marriage and strives to reduce their native population birth rate to serve short-term selfish gains, the jihadist prepares for his survival over the long haul.

Only a culture that elevates personal gratification over the health of their society cannot see the handwriting on the wall, or the slippery slope of twisted leftist ideology.

I wonder what would happen to our poor, misguided, ever-grieved ‘oppressed’ minorities if their benevolent western landlords were suddenly usurped by Islamic or Communist carpetbaggers? Much of Europe will find out in about one generation.

Women commit child sexual assault (CSA) but it is rare compared with male behavior. Precise numbers are unknown due to under-reporting but data converge in suggesting men violate children at 8-10-fold higher rates than do women. A child with two full-time, intimate male caregivers, regardless of sexual orientation, will be placed at significantly higher risk of CSA based on known sex offender incidence rates. SSM may not change the absolute number of male or female caregivers but it will intentionally segregate the risk factor into a higher-risk category (two males) and a lower-risk category (two females). Is this in the best interest of children?

After a legal moat is built around same-sex adoption by nationalized SSM, will states be prevented or discouraged from developing and applying higher levels of due diligence to prospective male-male legal parents? Will state and county child protective services (CPS) employees be further disinclined to pursue suspicious behavior owing to expanded legal protection of SSM? Veterans of CPS and the court system know that it is insufficiently structured and resourced to address the status quo CSA epidemic; how will expanding a newer high-risk population, viz. two intimate male caregivers, be addressed? Is pre-placement counseling mandated currently for children old enough to understand the higher-risk before going into a male-male adoptive or foster home environment? How to protect the human claim-rights of toddlers or infants in this matter? What is the future liability of adoption/surrogacy agencies for placing children into a well-established higher-risk environment? Please check your emotions; it is an error to assume only homosexual men will marry under SSM laws. Likewise, there is no inference here that all male-male couples must fail to pass higher-stringency due diligence thresholds. On the matter of CSA, however, males and females are certainly not “created equal.”

The opportunities arising out of such a distortion of nature are boundless for promoting even more crimes against nature- inherent in both our humanity and our society.

Aside from green-lighting a highly probable expansion of the child abuse industry, this ‘progressive’ advancement of ‘civilization’ will also open doors for myriad criminal activities designed to bypass all manner of tax, immigration and criminal laws- as well as foster even more abuse of the near-bankrupt entitlement programs. But, remember, the retort to SSM opponents is always “how will our ‘marriage’ adversely affect you?”

Of course, we’re ‘afraid’ to cite those stats that have determined that homosexual men also commit sexual offences at a higher rate than do heterosexual men; thereby, enhancing the already high risk to the children forced into these thoroughly unnatural conditions. Because, as we all know, citing statistics unfavorable to a perennially and professionally aggrieved ‘minority’ makes one a bigot/phobic/hater.

If nature had meant for SSA individuals to monogamously bond for life and ‘have’ or raise children- we wouldn’t be having to have this insane debate – it would have evolved to be so, naturally (which is an impossibility, in reality).

I guess we’ll have to debate the merits of opposite sex marriage soon enough since the nuts have gained control of the nuthouse ‘narrative’, for now.

Please show me the stats that SSM will “green-light a highly probable expansion of the child abuse industry.” That is utter homophobic nonsense and more proof that your arguments are based in anti-gay bigotry and not rational discourse or facts. You are an extremist and you pretend to shroud your arguments in what is “natural” or what is “the best system to raise children” but your arguments are based on nothing but fear and bigotry. SSM will in no way increase the welfare system, it will in no way put children at increased risk of child abuse, and it will in no way adversely affect other people’s marriage. You have not, and never have shown a single source or cited a single study to indicate any of these things are true and yet you still act like every goddamned comment you make has been signed off by God himself as the truth, and all SSM supporters are mindless idiots foolishly attempting to knock you off your high perch.

The statistics you claim to exist, that homosexual men abuse children at a higher rate than heterosexual men, have been roundly and widely discredited by every social scientist who has taken the time to research them. You get your facts from bigots like Robert Oscar Lopez and “Dr.” Paul Cameron, not actual scientists. Try a peer-reviewed study like this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

here’s the key finding: “Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. ”

First, the SSM proponent freezes the opposition, reframes their position to set up the ‘strawman’ they can attack, as opposed to their opponents actual statement, and then proceeds to use all sorts of PC labels and insults (is there anything I am not ‘guilty’ of in this recent emotional tirade?), at least from their ideologically-warped perspective, to attack the argument.

Where is anything about pedophilia in my submittal?

Where is anything about God in my submittal?

Are we now supposed to do the homework of the perennially lazy advocates and provide all the peer-reviewed literature on ephebophilia, pornography, mental illness (esp. suicide), drug abuse, domestic violence, life span (the come up about 30 yrs short of the overall population), physical health, and too-numerous-to-list other very real (with real stats thingies!) disorders that define this very subset of this 1.6-2.0% of the population? Did ya’ ever think that your low numbers were natures way of saying “yeah, this whole ‘gay’ thing- not so much”? In real life, as in evolution – that failure to thrive is a huge population failure (major disadvantage to fitness). In reality, it is only due to the goodness (humanity) of Man that you even still exist!

Do we really need another study to logically conclude that opening up marriage to ‘others’ will also naturally open up our society to those ‘others’ abuses?

I suppose a mind that cannot envision the reality (logic) of the slippery slope, or the reality of natural law is not expected to be capable of making any of these logical determinations.

I don’t know where in the scientific method emotion is introduced, or ever considered. Isn’t it ironic that those whose entire lives revolve around emotion to the degree that they define their very being – their whole existence, by their highly emotionalized and statistically insignificant (as in pure outlier) sexual behavior are now going to attempt to use logic to force their disordered personalities upon the rest of society.

I suppose, though, this is how you avoid being honestly responsive to the logical arguments of the SSM opposition.

Perhaps, one day, we will witness one of these brave advocates actually respond to the natural and social arguments against the promotion of SSM, and parenting.

Till then, we’ll need to continue to wade through the tears and tantrums of a very trouble segment of our population. It is, after all, how another soon to be affected segment of our population have learned to get their way- our children.

More idiotic ramblings. You provide no stats, no sources and the “facts” you bring up are blatant lies that any one can check simply by a quick search of academic journals. Your arguments have no basis in rational fact.

Your long list of the ills of the gay community is a completely nonsensical argument to deny them rights. We do not give out marital rights and benefits based on who is mentally or emotionally fit, or who watches too much pornography or who is prone to drug or alcohol abuse. It is just pointless insults and that’s all your argument comes down to.

Mental illness and suicide seems to come with every marginalized group in society. Gays are (still in many places) bullied, ostracized and condemned in this country and you use their depression and suicide rates against them as a community. If that isn’t anti-gay bigotry then I simply don’t know what is. You prefer a society where gays are further ostracized and yet you still blame them for being suicidal. You are a sick, twisted man and not a single thing you have ever typed in these comment sections has been backed up by rationality or a peer-reviewed source.

If you didn’t mean sexual abuse than please indicate what “child abuse” is and how it is more prevalent in homosexuals. That was the crux of your argument so please: prove it. I’ll be waiting

In the meantime, Katy, maybe you could take a look at what people on your side are saying about gay people. Please, since this is your blog and I’m sure you’re reading this comment at some point: look at Jae’s posts. Look at his demeaning and ostracizing and criticizing homosexuals for simply being homosexual. Now tell me how my side is “bigoted” for not recognizing your religious rights. These are the people that make up your side, these are the people that you fight alongside. I hope you recognize that.

Child abuse is purposefully placing children under the care of an insignificant minority segment of the population that suffers, disproportionately, from both mental and physical health problems.

Child abuse is ensuring, by your very stated SSM purpose, that any child you ‘acquire’ (another inhumane/barbaric venture), will be denied a natural relationship with one or both of its’ biological parents.

Should we speak slower for you?

I notice you could not deny the facts about the illnesses that affect this/your community- but, that you did attempt to blame all these ills on ‘bullying’. While that, too, is highly debatable (enjoy yourself there- I am not interested in being dragged down that rabbit hole with you), it really is not relevant to the fact that your segment of the population is at high risk for these ills.

If you can’t care for yourself, how is it your are qualified to care for a child?

Or, is that where your Mommy/Daddy- the state steps in- to grant you your every wish- even those nature determined you should not have? Or, did I get that fact wrong, too?

The appeal to the Bigot to review my comments and deem them bigoted is ‘precious’.

There will be no biological truths spoken, ever again….Sieg Heil, Mein Fuhrer!